MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6949178050 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14235923

REHOUSE public report: Monitoring programs for the 4 demos (construction, building operation, LCA, LCC)

2024· article· en· W6949178050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsCanadian Anesthesia Research Foundation
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsDemolitionTask (project management)Work (physics)Key (lock)Set (abstract data type)Control (management)Construction managementPerformance indicator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: This REHOUSE public report presents the work and actions carried out as part of Task 3.4 "Monitoring programs/plans” of REHOUSE work package (WP) 3 “Measurement, evaluation and learning methodology, impact assessment and platforms specifications”. The aim of this task is to set up programs/plans for monitoring the construction (retrofitting) phase and the operation phases of the 4 demo sites of REHOUSE Project. It considers the overall impact throughout its entire lifespan, encompassing not just the design, construction/refurbishment, and operational stages, but also extending to demolition and waste treatment. As a result of this task, 4 programs/plans have been developed for the project's demo sites:- Construction monitoring program;- Building operation monitoring program;- Life Cycle Analysis plan;- Life Cycle Cost plan. These 4 programs are defined in this report to evaluate and monitor the Key Performance indicators (KPIs) selected and defined in “D3.2 REHOUSE set of indicators selected for the impact assessment”. The Construction monitoring program is built based on construction management techniques used to control the quality, the time and the cost of construction (renovation) works during the construction projects. The aim of this program in REHOUSE is to establish a basis for renovation works at each demo site which will be used as reference and followed by all REHOUSE partners during renovation works implemented in the Task 4.4 of the WP4. This program provides roles and responsibilities of REHOUSE partners involved into renovation works and identifies risks and their mitigation measures for each demo site. The Building Operation monitoring program is built based on two main items:- A monitoring procedure during building operation before and after renovation works providing a very detailed process made of several steps and requirements.- The IPMVP (International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol) protocol as the framework for the Building Operation monitoring programme content, ensuring both quality of the assessment to be done and homogeneity among each pilot site. The Building Operation monitoring program is shared among all the partners as the reference document containing the information about parameters to be measured and associated measurement devices to evaluate the KPIs defined in the Deliverable 3.2, data acquisition systems, monitoring periods and ways on how to analyse the monitoring data collected with adjustments and quality insurance processes. The roles and responsibilities of partners involved into building operation and monitoring activities are also clearly defined in this program. The LCA and LCC plans are built on the basis of good practices widely adopted for life cycle evaluations and international norms as the norm ISO 14040 for the LCA and the norm ISO 15686-5 describing the LCC process. These plans are a series of organized steps or measures to proceed to LCA and LCC evaluations at scales of renovation packages and of demo site buildings in a common way for all REHOUSE demo sites. These plans are described through goal and scope definition, functional unit and system boundary.The scopes of each of these programs and some links with other REHOUSE tasks are illustrated in this report (D3.4). REHOUSE timeline is composed of 3 periods:- The baseline period which is the period of time chosen to represent the operation of the facility or system before the implementation of Energy Conservation Measures (before renovation with RPs in the REHOUSE project).- The renovation period (or installation period) which corresponds to the period of renovation works. During this period different data relative to construction aspects (the renovation time, installation costs, disturbance, etc) will be collected as defined in the construction monitoring plan.- The reporting period (or monitoring period) which is the period of time chosen for the purposes of verifying savings, the good performance of the systems and the improvement of the IEQ after implementation of Energy Conservation Measures (RPs in REHOUSE). In the REHOUSE case it is the period of time after the end of renovation works. The reporting period should last for at least 12 months in order to include a complete operation cycle of renovation solutions covering all the different weather conditions. Further public reports of the REHOUSE project: Publications – REHOUSE

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.202 · 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