Construction and Demolition Waste Management Research: A Science Mapping Analysis
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
Construction and demolition waste treatment has become an increasingly pressing economic, social, and environmental concern across the world. This study employs a science mapping approach to provide a thorough and systematic examination of the literature on waste management research. This study identifies the most significant journals, authors, publications, keywords, and active countries using bibliometric and scientometric analysis. The search retrieved 895 publications from the Scopus database between 2001 and 2021. The findings reveal that the annual number of publications has risen from less than 15 in 2006 to more than 100 in 2020 and 2021. The results declare that the papers originated in 80 countries and were published in 213 journals. Review, urbanization, resource recovery, waste recycling, and environmental assessment are the top five keywords. Estimation and quantification, comprehensive analysis and assessment, environmental impacts, performance and behavior tests, management plan, diversion practices, and emerging technologies are the key emerging research topics. To identify research gaps and propose a framework for future research studies, an in-depth qualitative analysis is performed. This study serves as a multi-disciplinary reference for researchers and practitioners to relate current study areas to future trends by presenting a broad picture of the latest research in this field.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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