Recycling as a construction waste management technique
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As green building concepts and sustainability principles continue to grow within the Canadian construction industry, construction companies are forced to adopt alternative, environmentally friendly waste management methods in order to avoid traditional landfilling. This paper documents the findings of a study carried out to investigate the economic viability of recycling construction waste. The study was carried out based on data collected on waste material collection, sorting and other activities related to waste management processes at two building construction projects in Calgary, Alberta. The results indicate that, under current market conditions, recycling is still not economically favourable compared with landfilling for two categories of waste (clean wood and drywall), while recycling of cardboard is favourable under certain conditions, for instance in situations where the rate of waste generation justifies the allocation of labour for waste collection and sorting. However, economisation of the recycling process is not unachievable if efforts are made. Recommendations towards the optimisation of the recycling of construction waste as a sustainable technique are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it