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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".