MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946490062 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3741343

Reuse and recycling of CDW materials and structures in energy efficient prefabricated elements for building refurbishment and construction - RE4

2020· article· en· W2946490062 on OpenAlexaff
Mark James Whittaker, Konstantinos Grigoriadis, Marios Soutsos, Wei Sha, Andrea Klinge, Sara Paganoni, Linus Brander, Michael Scullin, Ruben Correia, Tommaso Zerbi, Giovanni Staiano, Irene Merli, Ilaria Ingrosso, Agnese Attanasio, Alessandro Largo

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsReuseArchitectural engineeringEngineeringConstruction engineeringCivil engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC states that all member states should take all necessary measures in order to achieve at least 70% re-use, recycling or other recovery of non-hazardous Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) by 2020. In response, the Horizon 2020 RE4 project consortium (REuse and REcycling of CDW materials and structures in energy efficient pREfabricated elements for building REfurbishment and construction) consisting of 12 research and industrial partners across Europe, plus a research partner from Taiwan, was set up. For its success, the approach of the project was manifold, developing sorting technologies to first improve upon the quality of recycled aggregate. Simultaneously, CDW streams were assessed for quality and novel applications developed for timber, aggregate, and plastic waste in a variety of products including structural (e.g. beams, columns, slabs) and non-structural (e.g. building blocks, insulation panels, tiles) elements. With all products considered, innovative building concepts have been designed in a bid to improve future recycling of the products by promoting prefabricated construction methods and modular design to ease future recycling and increase value of the construction industry. The developed technologies and products will be put to the test in different test sites in building a 2 storey house containing at least 65% of CDW in the next 6 to 12 months.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207