MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972261733 · doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01676-w

(Sprayed) concrete production in life cycle assessments: a systematic literature review

2019· article· en· W2972261733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoTU Graz, Internationale Beziehungen und Mobilitätsprogramme
KeywordsComparabilityLife-cycle assessmentDocumentationComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental impact assessmentProduction (economics)Systematic reviewStatus quoCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringArchitectural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The carbon intensity that accompanies concrete manufacturing has been widely investigated. However, depending on the intended use, concrete’s embedded materials’ quantities can change significantly, affecting its environmental performance. Seldom investigated, sprayed concrete’s impact differs from that of typical ready mixed concrete, which justifies a differentiated inspection. Our goals are (i) to prove that sprayed concrete’s environmental impacts are under-investigated and (ii) to provide an overview on how concrete’s components’ production cycles are typically modelled in LCAs. Methods We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to gather the widest possible sample of papers in a replicable and transparent manner, aiming to answer two research questions: ‘What is the life cycle performance of sprayed concrete?’ and ‘What are the most frequent methodological choices made to perform an LCA of concrete’s constituents?’. We used eight different keyword strings for each of concrete’s most used components and searched for documents in databases Springer and ScienceDirect. After 3 conservative filtering rounds, 282 papers were thoroughly and collectively assessed to feed the outcome herein documented. Results and discussion The investigated literature not only showed a gap in sprayed concrete’s environmental impacts documentation but also allowed us to build a literary dossier to ground researches aiming to calculate typical concrete mixes’ impact through LCA, assuring comparability with the ecological status quo for that construction material. Practitioners’ most frequent methodological choices were documented, along with common standard breaches and limitations in investigated studies. Conclusions By systematically structuring our research protocol, we covered enough papers to provide a sound overview and to make collective conclusions regarding available literature. We make two main recommendations for LCA practitioners: non-carbon correlated impact categories ought to be investigated—especially as we move towards more carbon-friendly technologies in concrete/cement manufacturing. Second, practitioners should always comply with the transparency requirements of an LCA. Our outcome pointed to an alarming number of published papers that failed to declare basic methodological choices such as data sources, assessment methods used and impact distribution strategies in multifunctional processes’ modelling.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · 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