Sustainable Sand Substitutes in the Construction Industry in the United States and Canada: Assessing Stakeholder Awareness
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 United Nations has declared a global sand crisis, called for reduced sand consumption, and proposed solutions to address the crisis, including adopting sustainable substitutes for sand. The construction industry is a major consumer of sand, yet a recent study found a very low level of awareness by stakeholders of the crisis. The purpose of this study is to assess the familiarity of construction industry stakeholders with 27 sand substitute materials, grouped into five components that emerged from a factor analysis. Data were collected using a survey designed by the authors. Respondents consisted of 156 construction industry professionals located in 35 US states and 7 Canadian provinces. Stakeholders were classified according to a framework considering the level of power and interest of each stakeholder in sustainable construction projects. Hypotheses of no differences in awareness for two types of stakeholder groups were generally supported. First, no differences were found for decision makers responsible for ordering sand vs. non-decision makers. Second, for professional roles, academics were more familiar with some substitutes than those in other roles. The article concludes with implications for research and practice, with recommendations on how to increase awareness of sand substitutes among stakeholders in the construction industry.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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