Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building regulatory systems around the world are going through dramatic change in response to changing stakeholder needs and political environments. These changes are introducing greater flexibility through the explicit statement of the objectives of the regulations and an increase in expression of code requirements in performance terms. A common characteristic of these new regulations, generally referred to as performance or objective-based, is that they include or are supported by at least one set of acceptable solutions which are deemed to deliver the required performance. An alternative solution different from the corresponding acceptable solution may also be considered. This characteristic of these new building regulatory systems is an important feature for those wanting to encourage innovation and the advancement of new technologies.There are many issues and questions surrounding acceptable solutions, which must be addressed by those implementing performance-based building regulatory systems. CIB TG37, which is titled Performance-based Building Regulatory Systems, is working to gather information and experiences related to these issues and questions. These issues include the form of the acceptable solutions, what constitutes the minimum level of performance, relationship of the acceptable solutions to performance-based requirements and issues surrounding documentation and publication of the acceptable solutions. There are similar questions with regard to the acceptance of alternative solutions but the timeframe within which a building authority must respond is much shorter. In some cases the alternative solutions will be assessed against the objectives and performance requirements of the performance-based codes while in others the alternative solutions will be compared with the acceptable solutions. This paper will present the work to date of TG37 in studying these issues and questions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.060 |
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".