MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100090183

Information Analysis For Roofing Systems Maintenance

2007· article· en· W7100090183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityIdentification (biology)Building information modelingAsset managementInformation systemMaintenance actionsAsset (computer security)Process (computing)Service (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Building Envelope Life Cycle Asset Management (BELCAM) project, lead by the National Research Council Canada (NRCC) and Public Works and Government Service Canada (PWGSC), is a "proof of concept" project aimed at helping asset managers to predict the remaining service life of building envelope components and to maximize the return on their maintenance expenditure. The BELCAM project focuses on flat or low-slope conventional roofing systems as a representative domain. This paper focuses on maintenance management, which is primarily concerned with the management of all technical and administrative tasks involved in maintaining a building element in, or restoring it to, a state in which it can perform its intended function. A framework for the integration of the process of managing maintenance of roofing systems is proposed. The framework consists of five sequential steps: (1) Identification of roofing system components requiring assessment, (2) Identification of roofing system performance requirements, (3) Identification of performance assessment methods, (4) Roofing system maintenance planning, (5) Roofing system maintenance operations management. This paper introduces a framework for roofing systems maintenance management. It presents a preliminary analysis of an integrated information system to support maintenance management. The paper follows the development methodology adopted by the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) to represent the high-level information within the proposed framework of maintenance management. IAI projects follow a standard process-oriented development methodology, involving the following steps: usage scenarios, process definitions, information analysis and information modeling and validation.

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 score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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