Life Cycle Assessment report Thunderbird Old Arena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics several structures were built for recreational purposes. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out on two of the event arenas built for the 2010 Winter Olympics. One of the sites, the Thunderbird Arena was a renovation of an existing recreational complex. The LCA presented in this report is for the pre-existing complex, which consists of three main buildings. The scope focuses on the materials manufacturing and the construction of the buildings (i.e. maintenance and usage are disregarded) and the results were used to compare the impacts of the materials used during construction to aid with future design decisions. Modeling was conducted using On-Screen Takeoff 3 and Athena Impact Estimator (IE) software. These tools allowed for a Bill of Materials (BoM) to be generated as well as characterisations of the total environmental impacts due to materials manufacturing, building construction, and transportation. The TRACI method was used to report values on fossil fuel consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, human health respiratory, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion, and smog potential. It was found from the BoM that the top 5 materials used during the construction were aggregate rock, rebar, galvanized sheeting, steel tubing, and concrete block. A sensitivity analysis was then run on the materials to determine the change in impacts based off a 10% increase in each case. It was found that the most significant change in impact on construction was the 10% increase in rebar. [Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".