Life-cycle sustainability assessment of geotechnical site investigation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The life-cycle impacts of site characterization, an important component of most geotechnical engineering projects, are typically not considered in practice nor have they been studied in detail. A life-cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) was performed to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of several common site investigation methods. The potential impacts of these methods were computed to provide normalized metrics for the mobilization, drilling, sampling and (or) testing, and borehole sealing phases of the life cycle. These environmental impact and cost metrics were then applied to a “typical” 30 m exploration to compare different site investigation methods. Next, the metrics were used to assess the impacts of small and midsized industry investigation programs to investigate how impacts scale with project size. Scenario analyses were then performed on the midsized project to consider how different mobilization choices, grouting materials, and exploration methods influence total impacts. Collectively, this study provides a reference and framework that allows practitioners to assess environmental impacts in parallel with cost when designing site investigation scopes of work.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it