Addressing temporal considerations in life cycle assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In life cycle assessment (LCA), temporal considerations are usually lost during the life cycle inventory calculation, resulting in an aggregated "snapshot" of potential impacts. Disregarding such temporal considerations has previously been underlined as an important source of uncertainty, but a growing number of approaches have been developed to tackle this issue. Nevertheless, their adoption by LCA practitioners is still uncommon, which raises concerns about the representativeness of current LCA results. Furthermore, a lack of consistency can be observed in the used terms for discussions on temporal considerations. The purpose of this review is thus to search for common ground and to identify the current implementation challenges while also proposing development pathways. This paper introduces a glossary of the most frequently used terms related to temporal considerations in LCA to build a common understanding of key concepts and to facilitate discussions. A review is also performed on current solutions for temporal considerations in different LCA phases (goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis and life cycle impact assessment), analysing each temporal consideration for its relevant conceptual developments in LCA and its level of operationalisation. We then present a potential stepwise approach and development pathways to address the current challenges of implementation for dynamic LCA (DLCA). Three key focal areas for integrating temporal considerations within the LCA framework are discussed: i) define the temporal scope over which temporal distributions of emissions are occurring, ii) use calendar-specific information to model systems and associated impacts, and iii) select the appropriate level of temporal resolution to describe the variations of flows and characterisation factors. Addressing more temporal considerations within a DLCA framework is expected to reduce uncertainties and increase the representativeness of results, but possible trade-offs between additional data collection efforts and the increased value of results from DLCAs should be kept in mind.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".