MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098104501

Green Buildings Project Terms of Reference Background

2013· article· en· W7098104501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityGreen buildingEnvironmental designSustainable designEfficient energy useRating systemWater efficiency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advancement of green building practices was identified at the Regional District of Nanaimo Saturday, April 3, 2004 Sustainability Workshop 1 as one of the possible ways of making the region a more sustainable place to live. What is a Green Building? Green buildings are buildings that require less energy to operate, contribute fewer emissions to the environment, conserve water, generate less solid waste, and provide more comfortable and productive environments for their inhabitants. The definition of what is a green building is somewhat subjective, but different rating systems have been developed and are becoming more common in their use to assess a building’s greenness. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) appears to be the most well-known and widely used system to rate the greenness of buildings. It is a voluntary, consensus based self-assessment tool that has been embraced nationally and internationally as ‘the green building design standard 2 ’. LEED establishes a system in which a specified number of points are assigned according to the particular attributes of the building in five performance areas: the sustainability of the building site, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. Depending upon the number of points accumulated, and hence the sustainability of the building, buildings are classified as LEED Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2060.134

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207