Les tours de logements en bois : conception et usage : les enjeux des habitations en bois de grande hauteur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que les tours de logements en bois aient déjà été expérimentées dans des pays comme le Canada ou la Norvège, elles apparaissent encore comme un type de construction nouveau, notamment en France. Le phénomène de la grande hauteur en bois soulève des interrogations, dans un contexte où l‛on cherche à construire autrement : réduire l‛impact sur l‛environnement et recourir au biosourcé, mais également intégrer davantage l‛usager dans l‛exercice de conception du logement. Il s‛agit alors dans ce mémoire de se questionner sur la conception des tours de logements en bois et sur la notion d‛usage, elle-même en lien avec les idées de confort et de bien-être du futur habitant. Dans quelle mesure les tours d‛habitations en bois apparaissent-elles comme une solution face au besoin, d‛une part, d‛une diminution des impacts sur l‛environnement et, d‛autre part, d‛une meilleure prise en compte des qualités de vie et du confort d‛usage ?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".