Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Efficiency of Concrete Materials
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
Many materials have been proposed as ‘green’ alternatives to conventional concrete constituents. A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach is adopted to model the processes included in the life cycle of concrete. Five LCA software packages are evaluated to select a tool for use in this work. The sensitivity of LCA results to the composition of Ontario’s electricity grid is analyzed. Allocation of environmental impact to by-product materials, namely fly ash, is investigated. Six functional units representing various levels of complexity and incorporating strength and durability performance are developed. Finally, a methodology for calculating Environmental Efficiency Indicators (EEIs) for concrete is presented. EEIs are calculated for eight mix designs containing varying amounts of alternative concrete materials. The results show that supplementary cementitious materials and limestone cement improve EEI. The EEI of photocatalytic cement concrete is improved if SCMs are incorporated. Recycled aggregate concrete has a lower EEI compared to conventional concrete.
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) | 0.004 | 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