MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105418987 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v5n1p2

Sustainable Materials Selection for Canadian Construction Industry: An Emergy-Based Life-Cycle Analysis (Em-LCA) of Conventional and LEED Suggested Construction Materials

2011· article· en· W2105418987 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Navid Hossaini, Kasun Hewage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergyRenewable energyLife-cycle assessmentProduct (mathematics)Sustainable developmentEnvironmental economicsScale (ratio)Natural resourceConsumption (sociology)Production (economics)Environmental scienceEngineeringEcologyGeographyMathematicsEconomicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building industry is a major cause of ecological and environmental problems in the global scale. It accounts for 40% of material and 30% of global energy consumption. Emergy (spelled with an “m”) is the energy of one kind (usually solar energy) that is used, directly or indirectly, to make a product or service. The objective of this paper is to identify sustainable construction materials by assessing the specific emergy of major construction materials used in Canada, including a few rapidly renewable materials suggested by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Lifecycle analysis (LCA) of the selected materials was carried out to identify all type of natural, human, and energy resources used in their production process. The specific emergy of each selected material was calculated using the corresponding transformity functions. Results show that rapidly renewable materials suggested by LEED should not be taken blindly without considering the location of construction.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicSustainability and Ecological Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207