MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6946284011 · doi:10.26207/s6e3-h815

Revisiting Social Aspects of Green Buildings: Barriers, Drivers, and Benefits

2021· article· en· W6946284011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySocial sustainabilitySustainable developmentSocial benefitsCivil societyTriple bottom lineSocial impactSocial responsibility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction industry is recognized as one of the primary contributors to substantial environmental concerns and influences sustainable development's economic and social aspects. Green buildings have been shown a remedy to decelerate the detrimental impacts of construction on the triple bottom lines of sustainability and have therefore gained growing attention and significance in recent decades. Numerous efforts have been made to study green buildings' economic and environmental aspects. Nonetheless, not equal attention has been devoted to the social aspects of green buildings. This could be attributed to a lack of knowledge or limited understanding of social barriers, drivers, and benefits of green buildings. Failing to address and implement social aspects effectively can defeat the purpose of sustainable development in the construction industry. This study presents the preliminary outcomes of a bigger comprehensive literature review on green buildings' social barriers, drivers, and benefits. The paper intends to contribute to a more profound and thorough understanding of social sustainability in construction and can assist architects, engineers, and other construction professionals in their green buildings' decision-making processes. Presented at the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers (CSCE) 2021 Annual Conference

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries)Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207