MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141509674 · doi:10.1186/s13021-021-00171-w

Wood product carbon substitution benefits: a critical review of assumptions

2021· review· en· W3141509674 on OpenAlexafffund
Christina Howard, Caren C. Dymond, Verena C. Griess, Darius Tolkien-Spurr, G. Cornelis van Kooten

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Balance and Management · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaGovernment of British ColumbiaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsSubstitution (logic)Carbon fibersProduct (mathematics)Environmental scienceGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsEnvironmental economicsWaste managementEngineeringEconomicsComputer scienceMathematicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are high estimates of the potential climate change mitigation opportunity of using wood products. A significant part of those estimates depends on long-lived wood products in the construction sector replacing concrete, steel, and other non-renewable goods. Often the climate change mitigation benefits of this substitution are presented and quantified in the form of displacement factors. A displacement factor is numerically quantified as the reduction in emissions achieved per unit of wood used, representing the efficiency of biomass in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The substitution benefit for a given wood use scenario is then represented as the estimated change in emissions from baseline in a study's modelling framework. The purpose of this review is to identify and assess the central economic and technical assumptions underlying forest carbon accounting and life cycle assessments that use displacement factors or similar simple methods. MAIN TEXT: Four assumptions in the way displacement factors are employed are analyzed: (1) changes in harvest or production rates will lead to a corresponding change in consumption of wood products, (2) wood building products are substitutable for concrete and steel, (3) the same mix of products could be produced from increased harvest rates, and (4) there are no market responses to increased wood use. CONCLUSIONS: After outlining these assumptions, we conclude suggesting that many studies assessing forest management or products for climate change mitigation depend on a suite of assumptions that the literature either does not support or only partially supports. Therefore, we encourage the research community to develop a more sophisticated model of the building sectors and their products. In the meantime, recognizing these assumptions has allowed us to identify some structural, production, and policy-based changes to the construction industry that could help realize the climate change mitigation potential of wood products.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarbon Balance and ManagementSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207