ECOPT <sup>2</sup> : An adaptable life cycle assessment model for the environmentally constrained optimization of prospective technology transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method to evaluate the environmental impacts of technologies from cradle to grave. However, LCAs are commonly defined in terms of the consumption of a single unit of a product and thus ignore scaling issues in large‐scale deployment of technologies. Such product‐level LCAs often do not consider capital manufacturing capacity and supply chain bottlenecks that may hinder the rapid, widespread uptake of emerging technologies entering the market; emerging technologies often require the expansion of existing supply chains or the development of entirely new supply chains, such as the manufacturing of novel materials. As a result, such LCA studies are limited in their ability to realistically assess impacts at the macro‐scale and thus to guide large‐scale decisions. In this work, we present ECOPT 2 , a generalized adaptable model that combines these constraints to the LCA approach using a mathematical programming approach and dynamic stock modeling. ECOPT 2 combines LCA factors with transition scenarios from energy systems models to determine the environmentally optimal deployment of new technologies while accounting for material circularity constraints and barriers to uptake. We also introduce the structure of the software tool and demonstrate its features using a stylized vehicle electrification scenario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".