MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969298018 · doi:10.1680/ensu.11.00026

Retrofit versus new-build house using life-cycle assessment

2012· article· en· W1969298018 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsRetrofittingLife-cycle assessmentStage (stratigraphy)Life spanBaseline (sea)Environmental impact assessmentArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringOperations managementEnvironmental scienceProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the findings of research on the environmental performance of two case-study houses, a retrofit and new build. The retrofit was completed to a Passivhaus standard while the new build was completed to current Irish building regulations. Environmental performance of the retrofit and new build was measured using life-cycle assessments, examining the assembly, operational and end-of-life stage over life spans of 50 and 80 years. Using primary information, life-cycle assessment software and life-cycle assessment databases the environmental impacts of each stage were modelled. The operational stage of both case studies was found to be the source of the most significant environmental damage, followed by the assembly and the end-of-life stage respectively. The relative importance of the assembly and end-of-life stage decreased as the life span increased. It was found that the retrofit house studied outperformed the new build in the assembly and operational stage, whereas the new build performed better in the end-of-life stage; however, this is highly sensitive, depending on the standards to which both are completed. Operational energy savings pre- and post-retrofit were significant, indicating the future potential for adoption of high-quality retrofitting practices.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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