Determining Stocks and Flows of Structural Wood Products in Single Family Homes in the United States between 1950 and 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stocks and flows of six major structural wood products (SWPs)—lumber, plywood, oriented strand board [OSB], glue laminated timber, I-joists, and laminated veneer lumber (LVL)—in US single family homes were modeled from 1950 to 2010. The consumption of these products in US single family homes and their emissions as construction and demolition wastes were estimated. The net consumption of SWPs decreased from 119 kg/m2 constructed in 1986 to 82 kg/m2 in 2010. Softwood lumber was consistently the predominant SWP, but its usage intensity decreased from 95 kg/m2 in 1986 to 52 kg/m2 in 2010. Since the 1980s, modern SWPs, such as I-joists, LVL, and OSB, have replaced lumber and plywood products. The needs of the US single family housing industry have been met by a smaller mass of SWPs per unit area constructed. The mass of SWP present in construction wastes was influenced strongly by building cycles. Production of construction waste peaked in 2005, when 3.31 million tonnes of SWPs were produced by 1.72 million single family housing starts. It diminished to 0.874 million tonnes of SWPs as the housing starts fell to 445,000 in 2009. In contrast, the mass of demolition wastes produced was affected substantially by the number of houses in the stock and their half-lives. Approximately 4.5 million tonnes of SWP demolition waste were produced in 2010, and in the same year, the stock of SWPs in US single family homes reached 1,220 million tonnes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".