MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linking construction timber carbon storage with land use and forestry management practices

2019· article· en· W2971545660 on OpenAlexaff
Eilidh Forster, John R. Healey, Caren C. Dymond, Gary Newman, G. Matt Davies, David Styles

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasSustainabilityLand use, land-use change and forestryThinningForestryCarbon sequestrationLand useForest managementAgricultureWood productionBusinessEnvironmental scienceForest productAgroforestryNatural resource economicsEconomicsGeographyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Consequential life cycle assessment was applied to forestry systems to evaluate the environmental balance of expanding forestry onto marginal agricultural land to supply more timber for the built environment, accounting for land use effects and product substitution. Forestry expansion to supply timber buildings could mitigate UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2.4 Gg CO2 eq. per ha of forest over 100 years, though net mitigation could be halved if beef production were displaced to Brazil. Forest thinning increases wood yields and percentage conversion of harvested wood to construction sawnwood, resulting in 5% greater net GHG mitigation compared with unthinned systems. Optimising the environmental sustainability of construction timber value chains in a circular, bio-based economy will require holistic accounting of land use (change), forestry management and complex flows of wood.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207