MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097021044

The Belcam Project: a summary of three years of

2007· article· en· W7097021044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvelope (radar)Asset (computer security)Building envelopeService (business)Building information modelingAsset managementRisk managementReliability (semiconductor)Cost estimateMarkov chain
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of the Building Envelope Life Cycle Asset Management (BELCAM) Project were to develop techniques to predict the remaining service life of building envelope components and procedures to optimize their maintenance. Six enabling technologies were identified as critical to the tasks: service life prediction, life cycle economics, risk analysis, maintenance optimization, and information technologies. Roofing systems were chosen as the domain for the "proof of concept" of the techniques and procedures. Information technology was to be used extensively in the course of the project. During the three-year term of the project, data were collected on 2800 roof sections from a wide range of systems and climatic regions across Canada. Data in this paper are presented based on age, material type, geographic location and condition of the roofing sections. Markov Chain modeling was used to predict the change in conditions of representative samples; deterioration curves were generated to predict the change in condition, and remaining service life of specific components of the roofing system could be estimated from these data. The first objective was accomplished through these activities. The project then developed techniques to estimate the life cycle costs for different maintenance strategies and to estimate the risk of envelope failure. Multi-objective optimization was used to prioritize planned maintenance, based on maximizing condition, while minimizing risk of failure and cost of repairs; thereby attaining the second objective of the project. A prototype, graphical, decision-support tool, developed as a result of this research, is described. A main goal of the project was to utilize information technology to a heavy degree in data collection, analysis and display.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207