Temporally-differentiated biogenic carbon accounting of wood building product life cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although standards have identified temporary carbon storage as an important element to consider in wood product LCAs, there has been no consensus on a methodology for its accounting. This work aims to improve the accounting of carbon storage and fluxes in long-life wood products in LCA. Biogenic carbon from harvested roundwood logs were tracked using the Carbon Budget Model Framework for Harvested Wood Products (CBMF-HWP). Carbon flows through wood product manufacturing, building life and end-of-life phases, and carbon stocks and fluxes from harvest to the atmosphere were estimated. To cover the products commonly used in the Canadian building industry, a range of softwood products types, provinces and territories and building lifetimes were considered. In addition, policy scenarios were considered in order to model the effects of dynamic parameters through time as a policy target is reached. Most wood products have similar emissions profiles, though cross-laminated timber has higher sawmill emissions and oriented-strand board has higher initial post-demolition emissions. The region of construction is also predictive of the initial post-demolition emissions. Higher recycling rates shift materials from landfills into subsequent product systems, thus avoiding landfill emissions. Landfill decay rates are affected by climate and results in a large range of landfill emissions. The degree of postponement of end-of-life emissions is highly dependent upon the wood product type, region and building lifespan parameters. This work develops biogenic carbon profiles that allows for modelling dynamic cradle-to-grave LCAs of Canadian wood products. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s42452-020-03979-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".