A Functionality Based Wood Substitutability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent progress in Life Cycle Impact Assessment highlighted the need to assess the loss of resources’ functional value when assessing the life cycle impacts of resource depletion. To be able to assess the loss of functional value of resources due to scarcity and depletion, there is a need to assess the potential substitutions among different resources to fulfill the same functionality. In this sense, the main objective of this study is the development of a method for obtaining a substitution index (SI) for wood, quantifying to what extent the wood is substitutable by other available resources for the different functions it can fulfill. The aim of our method is to characterize wood through its functions and inherent properties by using following parameters (availability, price, current usage). As a result, we obtained SI for five functions of wood, classified by country and region. The results showed that wood substitution varies between each of its functions and also for each region. In general, replacing wood with other resources is a challenge for most regions and most functions, with SI usually below 0.5 on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 indicate that there is no substitution and 1 indicate that the resource can be thoroughly replaced.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".