MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151586500 · doi:10.3390/ma14081848

A State of the Art of the Overall Energy Efficiency of Wood Buildings—An Overview and Future Possibilities

2021· review· en· W3151586500 on OpenAlexafffund
Matheus Roberto Cabral, Pierre Blanchet

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEfficient energy useEmbodied energyArchitectural engineeringCross laminated timberFrame (networking)EngineeringCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this study was to review current studies on the state of the art of wood constructions with a particular focus on energy efficiency, which could serve as a valuable source of information for both industry and scholars. This review begins with an overview of the role of materials in wood buildings to improve energy performance, covering structural and insulation materials that have already been successfully used in the market for general applications over the years. Subsequently, studies of different wood building systems (i.e., wood-frame, post-and-beam, mass timber and hybrid constructions) and energy efficiency are discussed. This is followed by a brief introduction to strategies to increase the energy efficiency of constructions. Finally, remarks and future research opportunities for wood buildings are highlighted. Some general recommendations for developing more energy-efficient wood buildings are identified in the literature and discussed. There is a lack of emerging construction concepts for wood-frame and post-and-beam buildings and a lack of design codes and specifications for mass timber and hybrid buildings. From the perspective of the potential environmental benefits of these systems as a whole, and their effects on energy efficiency and embodied energy in constructions, there are barriers that need to be considered in the future.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207