MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092364284 · doi:10.3992/jgb.7.3.16

FROM YOUR CAR TO YOUR PATIO: USING RECYCLED TIRE PRODUCTS IN BUILDING PROJECTS

2012· article· en· W2092364284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brett Eckstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Green Building · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringAutomotive engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION. Canada has dealt with many of the same challenges managing scrap tires as found in other countries; however, with the world's second largest land mass and one of the lowest population densities, the challenges of recycling tires in Canada can be even more daunting.Over 350,000 tons of tires are discarded each year in Canada. That is the equivalent of 35 million passenger car tires—or one tire per Canadian—generated as waste annually. Of this total, the province of Manitoba is responsible for generating 1.3 million scrap tires annually, requiring an in-province environmental management solution. Tire Stewardship Manitoba's role is to ensure that every tire from every corner of the province is collected and processed, as well as finding markets for its recycled tire rubber products.The purpose of this article is to provide the practicing professional some insight into tire recycling in Canada and Tire Stewardship Manitoba's role. It also serves as an introduction to creating more sustainable buildings and landscapes using recycled tire materials and products in new building, road, or landscape projects.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Green BuildingSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207