MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127945059 · doi:10.22260/crc-csce-2025/0167

Best Practices in Building Systems (BPiBS): Advancing Knowledge Mobilization through Road Mapping

2025· article· W7127945059 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Madelaine Prince, Wilma K. W. Leung, Alex Dekin, Thomas Froese, Phalguni Mukhopadhyaya, Rakesh Kumar, Elisabeth Girgis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBC HydroGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBest practiceCapacity buildingKnowledge transferWork (physics)Mobilization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Best Practices in Building Systems (BPiBS) initiative seeks to drive much-needed change in the housing sector and building industry by addressing pressing technical, economic, environmental, social and health challenges.Through collaborative research and stakeholder engagement, BPiBS is developing an iterative roadmap to enhance building systems for new and existing housing across urban and rural Canada, beginning in British Columbia and informing national solutions.This paper outlines the project's vision, focus areas, and early progress.Thematic research includes energy systems, building exteriors and grounds, health-centric design, water and waste systems, and building forms and structures.Guided by the objectives of economic value, environmental sustainability, health and wellbeing, social equity, and innovation, BPiBS advances evolving, context-responsive best practices.These approaches are shaped by continuous learning across technical, ecological, economic, and social domains.They balance scalability with specificity, aiming for long-term well-being while addressing short-term needs.Key activities include stakeholder engagement, a structured knowledge repository, use of AI and machine learning for interdisciplinary data analysis, scenario planning, and formulation of a roadmap and strategy for knowledge mobilization and capacity-building.A graph database underpins the computational platform, organizing data into a living roadmap informed by input from policy actors, industry leaders, and educators.By enhancing alignment across industry, regulatory and education spheres, this project streamlines decision-making and accelerates adoption of emergent best practices within building systems.These systems are integrated networks of structural, infrastructural, and socio-environmental elements that support the function, adaptation, and livability of built environments.In housing, they co-create the places we call home.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0210.024
Open science0.0070.029
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207