Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of a performance based approach to building regulations in 1996 with Australia marked a watershed in the way in which applications for building permits were determined. Rather than a wholesale reliance on a deemed to satisfy approach whereby designers demonstrated compliance via a fairly narrow selection of ways in which the building would achieve the minimum standards set out in the Building Code of Australia, the new approach allowed designers to submit alternate solutions. The aim was to encourage innovation and use of alternate materials and designs in buildings. However the submission of alternate solutions also involved the analysis of complex calculation especially with regards to structural matters and fire safety. The building profession in Australia has largely been comprised of tradesmen who have supplemented their work experience with education to become building surveyors. There are concerns that the profession is unable to deal with the complex alternate solutions submitted under the new system, so much so that some say the profession is now at a crossroads. There are those who should deal exclusively with deemed to satisfy applications and an elite building surveyor needs to emerge to deal with alternate solutions. What impact would such a move have on the profession? This paper explores the issues surrounding the current situation faced by the profession in Australia. Given that performance based approaches are used in the US, UK and Canada this paper will have relevance to building surveyors in other countries. TS 28 – Construction Economics I
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".