MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344813169 · doi:10.14288/1.0108619

An investigation into Rapidly Renewable Materials : bamboo and cotton

2014· article· en· W2344813169 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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBambooRenewable energyBusinessNatural resource economicsEconomicsEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable development requires the utilization of renewable resources. Renewable resources, whether it is energy or material, are the ones that can be regenerated within a short period time. Rapidly Renewable Materials (RRMs) are examples of such resources. RRMs are plant based materials that can be renewed within 10 years. Bamboo and cotton are two examples of available RRMs. These two materials can be used as an alternative to their commonly used construction materials in the new Student Union Building on UBC campus. Bamboo is a type of grass with extremely fast growth rate. The average time it takes for bamboo to reach maturity is 5 years. It can be used for flooring, wall covering, ceiling and furniture. Triple bottom line analysis shows that economically, it is much cheaper to purchase and recycle bamboo compared to its competitors such as Steel, Azobe and Robina. Environmentally, it can grow fast and absorb a considerable amount of CO₂ and produce Oxygen. It can also restore the degraded lands because its litter feeds the top soil of the land where it grows and its recycling process is environmentally friendly. Socially, it offers a variety of new job opportunities and green communities. There are some local suppliers of bamboo in Canada and hence it can be used in the new Student Union Building. Cotton is a plant and its fibers are commonly used in clothing industry. However, cotton fibers can also be used as a good insulating material in building construction. Triple bottom line analysis of cotton shows that economically, it is less costly to purchase and implement cotton based insulators compared to its chemically produced competitors. Environmentally, if it is produced organically, not only it preserves the animal habitat and different insect species, but also it has a very limited foot print in terms of water consumption with only 2.6% of the global water use compared to other agricultural products. Socially, cotton can produce variety of green jobs and also alleviate health concerns compared to chemically produced insulators. Local suppliers of cotton insulators are available in Canada and therefore it can be implemented in the new Student Union Building on UBC campus. 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.148
Teacher spread0.144 · 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