Environmental assessment of earth retaining wall structures
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
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is recognised as a powerful technique to determine the environmental impact component of sustainability assessments of structures in civil engineering projects at the time of design. This paper explains the principal parts and stages in an LCA methodology and demonstrates the approach using the examples of two conventional retaining wall types (gravity and cantilever type) and two mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) wall solutions using steel and polymeric soil reinforcement. The analyses include structures built to four different heights. The LCA methodology was able to quantitatively distinguish between the component environmental impacts of different wall solutions and thus provide a practical numerical score-based tool for designers to choose between candidate solutions. The MSE wall solutions resulted in lower environmental impacts than gravity and cantilever wall solutions as measured by global warming potential, cumulative energy demand, six major midpoint environmental indicator categories, three endpoint damage categories and in terms of overall endpoint scores. The target audiences for this paper are geotechnical and structural engineers engaged in the design of earth retaining wall structures but are less familiar with recent developments in LCA and how LCA can be linked to the design of these systems.
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