Differential Durability and the Life Cycle of Buildings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings from research conducted into the differential durability of major components comprising modern buildings, and how this impacts their life cycle energy demand, and hence their sustainability.The purpose of the research is to provide architects with better insights into the life cycle energy implications of material, assembly and system selections.Differential durability is a term used to describe how the useful service life of building components, such as structure, envelope, finishes and services, differs -both between components, and within the materials, assemblies and systems comprising the components.A fuller consideration of recurring embodied energy (maintenance, repair, retrofit and replacement) during the design process has the potential to realize significant opportunities for enhancing the life cycle sustainability of modern buildings.A review of international research generally indicates that with exception to structural elements, all of the other components require varying levels of maintenance, repair and replacement during the life cycle of the building.The extent and intensity of these recurring embodied energy demands vary significantly, depending on how appropriately the durability of materials, assemblies and systems are harmonized, and how accessible they are for periodic maintenance, repair and replacement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it