MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182610807 · doi:10.14288/1.0103131

Potential opportunities for cross laminated timber in South Korean residential building market

2012· article· en· W2182610807 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Yun

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCross laminated timberArchitectural engineeringEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross laminated timber (CLT) is one of the fastest growing engineered wood products in Europe. It is considered to be one of the most reliable wood building materials in the current market. It provides great strength while reducing construction time and carbon emission, which can be marketed competitively with steel and concrete as a primary building material. These advantages allow CLT to be considered the most popular timber product in multi-home complex construction as well as mid-rise commercial building constructions in Europe. Current Korean building permits and regulation system are highly favourable to steel and concrete construction. In order for CLT and other wood products to penetrate into this monopolized construction market, Korean government needs to make changes to promote sustainable building code. However, it is highly unlikely that CLT construction will be able to generate any significant revenue at this point due to lack of marketing and knowledge of the product in South Korea. This report will discuss in detail on what ways CLT products can be introduced initially in South Korea to create similar interest and demand CLT gained in Europe and North America. The public awareness on environment is growing rapidly in South Korea, and construction companies consistently look for greener marketing strategies to satisfy the interest and concern of the general public. CLT can be the ideal material to break through the heavily favoured construction material market in South Korea. Potential opportunities of CLT products are discussed extensively in this report.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207