MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940166410 · doi:10.3390/su11082258

Life Cycle Assessment Contribution in the Product Development Process: Case Study of Wood Aluminum-Laminated Panel

2019· article· en· W2940166410 on OpenAlexaff
Franz Segovia, Pierre Blanchet, Ben Amor, Costel Barbuta, Robert Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental impact assessmentSolid woodLaminationSandwich panelManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialStructural engineeringProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of aluminum lamination in improving the physical and mechanical properties of wood-based composites is now well documented. This paper shows the contribution of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a tool to assess and compare the environmental footprint in the development of laminated panels. SimaPro 9.0 software, using Ecoinvent database was used to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the manufacturing of wood aluminum-laminated (WAL) panels and aluminum honeycomb panel (AHP). The impact 2002+ method was used to estimate environmental impacts. The LCA results show that the WAL panels manufacturing had a lower environmental impact than AHP manufacturing. In term of product, wood-based composites were the best choice as a core in laminated panel manufacturing. Wood-based composite manufacturing showed environmental advantages in all damage categories except in ecosystem quality. Aluminum alloy sheets manufacturing played an important role in the generation of environmental impacts for laminated panel development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207