MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220678549 · doi:10.1061/9780784483978.068

A Framework for Estimating the Reuse Value of In Situ Building Materials

2022· article· en· W4220678549 on OpenAlexaff
Aida Mollaei, Chris Bachmann, Carl T. Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2022 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseDemolitionDeconstruction (building)Raw materialCircular economyNatural resourceConsumption (sociology)Environmental economicsPopulationProduction (economics)Work (physics)Building materialSustainabilityBusinessCivil engineeringEngineeringWaste managementMechanical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid global population growth is leading to an increase in demand for raw materials. The construction sector is responsible for a major part of global material consumption, accounting for approximately 50% of raw material extraction. Although the demand for construction materials is increasing, natural resources are becoming scarcer. One solution to mitigate the pressure on natural resources is to implement urban mining strategies. These will require demolition, disassembly, and deconstruction processes that belong to the broader construction domain as it evolves toward a circular economy in the built environment. Significant work has been conducted on measuring and managing the availability of secondary materials in material banks. However, there is a lack of understanding of the market value of these material banks and their potential for decreasing raw material consumption. In this research, a framework that can be used to estimate the reuse and recycling market value of in situ materials is developed. The results of this research aim to positively impact the transition to a more circular economy in the built environment by bringing insight into the value of materials that are currently in-use but have the potential to support future demands.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstruction Research Congress 2022Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207