Is crushed concrete carbonation significant enough to be considered as a carbon mitigation strategy?
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
Abstract When addressing concrete carbonation as a carbon mitigation option, studies leave out the effect that a temporal difference between the CO 2 emissions and uptake happening throughout concrete’s life cycle have on climate change. In this study, the role played by carbonation on concrete’s carbon mitigation potential is investigated through a dynamic life cycle assessment, to properly position CO 2 uptake and release. The carbon balance in concrete structures built and demolished from 2018 to 2050 is modelled as a case study. The potential uptake due to crushed concrete carbonation is over 9% of the cumulative global warming effect of concrete manufacturing. It is comparable to the reduction potential of the most promising strategy, namely replacing clinker, totaling 12%. If stimulated in a wide scale, crushed concrete carbonation can push the industry towards meeting carbon mitigation targets faster. Future environmental impact assessments should rely on dynamic models to increasingly consider this phenomenon.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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