MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982364121 · doi:10.3992/jgb.3.3.97

Designing Buildings Using Reclaimed Steel Components

2008· article· en· W1982364121 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Gorgolewski, Vera Straka, Janine Edmonds, C Sergio-Dzoutzidis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Green Building · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchitectural engineeringEngineeringComponent (thermodynamics)Civil engineeringEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringConstruction engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The consumption of non-renewable resources and the creation of wastes have been identified as among the key issues that our society must address in order not to prejudice the opportunities of future generations. Yet the way we design and construct our buildings leads to huge volumes of waste being generated as well as the use of large amounts of materials, the extraction of which leads to considerable environmental damage. So, how can we design buildings in a way that creates closed loop materials systems that minimize waste generation and primary resourse use? The objective of this paper is to review work carried out at Ryerson University in Canada funded by NRCan and CISC to identify ways in which construction can set up reuse loops for steel components so that waste and the demand for primary steel are reduced. In particular, the design and construction issues related to the use of salvaged steel components will be reviewed, through a series of case studies to draw out lessons and conclusions about the implications of component reuse in construction. The case studies are of projects that reuse steel components from old buildings into new buildings. They suggest that opportunities for steel reuse are significant but the industry needs to establish appropriate structures and cyclical systems and methods to ensure that components can be easily reclaimed from old buildings for reuse. Furthermore, certain ingrained industry design processes need to be overcome for reuse of steel (and other components) to become more acceptable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Green BuildingSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207