MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331142310 · doi:10.3130/aije.79.623

COMPARISON OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CO2 EMISSION DURING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STAGE BETWEEN CANADA AND JAPAN

2014· article· en· W2331142310 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering (Transactions of AIJ) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy consumptionConsumption (sociology)Table (database)Stage (stratigraphy)Environmental economicsTotal energyEnvironmental scienceLife-cycle assessmentEngineeringArchitectural engineeringAgricultural economicsProduction (economics)Computer scienceEconomicsDatabaseElectrical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this thesis is to develop the effective method to calculate and compare the total amount of a life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission during both Canada's and Japan's building construction stage. The total economic impacts for materials and services used directly and indirectly during building construction process is evaluated using Canada's and Japan's Input-Output (I/O) table to find the total amount of energy consumption and CO2 emission. This study is useful to characterize materials and services for building construction stage using I/O table analysis and compare a life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission under two different countries' construction techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · 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