MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892132801 · doi:10.3390/su10093331

Application of Wall and Insulation Materials on Green Building: A Review

2018· review· en· W2892132801 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Wang, Pen‐Chi Chiang, Yanpeng Cai, Chunhui Li, Xuan Wang, Tse-Lun Chen, Shiming Wei, Qian Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityArchitectural engineeringThermal insulationGreen buildingEnergy consumptionEmbodied energySoftware deploymentBuilding materialResource efficiencyBuilding constructionEfficient energy useNatural resourceZero-energy buildingConstruction engineeringCivil engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction materials utilized in the building sector have accounted for a large amount of natural resource and energy consumption. Green building, which has developed over three decades, can be regarded as a management and technical approach for building and construction sectors to achieve resource and energy sustainability in building sectors. Therefore, the development and deployment of green construction materials play an important role in the green building field due to the contribution of sustainable resources and energy. To realize the barriers of energy and resources utilization on green building, the development trend, application, and some case studies on wall materials and thermal insulation materials are described. A summary of plant fibers, recycled wastes, and photochromic glass is developed to show applications of green construction materials, which contributes to sustainable development. The challenges and barriers from business, technical, and policy aspects are also reviewed. Finally, perspectives and prospects of green construction material life-cycle framework are illustrated. This paper presents a snapshot review of the importance of wall materials and thermal insulation materials from the point of view of energy and resources consumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207