MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751683033 · doi:10.18331/brj2017.4.3.2

Beyond the conventional “life cycle” assessment

2017· article· en· W2751683033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuel Research Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentProduct (mathematics)Supply chainBusinessConsumption (sociology)Service (business)Environmental economicsResource depletionResource (disambiguation)Product lifecycleProcess (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningNatural resource economicsComputer scienceMarketingEnvironmental scienceNew product developmentEconomicsProduction (economics)Political scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its concepts emerged in 1960s, life cycle assessment (LCA) has grown to be a major tool to evaluate the environmental performance of products. Today, it is applied to economic activities of all kinds, from extractive industries to services, and of different scales, from process design to global trade. The idea of LCA is indeed compelling. It covers the entire life cycle of a product, from resource extraction, manufacturing, transport, wholesale and retail, to use and end-of-life management. It also strives to cover almost all the environmental stressors that contribute to all the problems facing us, from resource depletion, climate change, smog formation, acidification, eutrophication, to noise, ecological toxicity, biodiversity loss, and human health cancer and non-cancer effects. Embedded in the comprehensiveness is the goal to prevent or minimize burdening shifting across life cycle stages, environmental areas, and regions.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuel Research JournalSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207