MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231116680 · doi:10.1504/ijgw.2018.093125

A comparative life cycle assessment based evaluation of greenhouse gas emission and social study: natural fibre versus glass fibre reinforced plastic automotive parts

2018· article· en· W4231116680 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoud Akhshik, Suhara Panthapulakkal, Jimi Tjong, Mohini Sain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Global Warming · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFord Motor Company
KeywordsGreenhouse gasAutomotive industryLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceSawdustGreenhouseEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementEngineeringPulp and paper industryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current atmospheric CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is already over 400 ppm, which is 50 ppm beyond our planetary boundary. Every single step towards reducing our carbon emission is important. Fuel saving due to the light weighting of the automotive materials will reduce greenhouse gas emission in the transportation sector, if the light weighting roots from a by-product natural fibre, such as sawdust or agricultural waste, the emission reduction would be more effective. The current study is a comparative life cycle assessment based evaluation of greenhouse gas emission of the current plastic engine beauty cover, and natural fibre reinforced counterpart. This study also analyses the questionnaire results gotten from 600 new car owners (or leaser) as a small sample of a buyer society.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Global WarmingSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207