Sustainable Construction—Technological Aspects of Ecological Wooden Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wooden construction constitutes a specific branch of the building industry that focuses on high-quality materials, a developed sense of aesthetics connected with comfort and functionality, and concern for ecology and durability. This type of construction has a positive effect on human quality of life. This article focuses on modular frame construction and technological aspects of wooden houses built according to Canadian or Scandinavian technologies. Taking weather conditions of Scandinavian countries into consideration, timber is a popular building material, which, when preserving certain parameters such as density of rings, may provide durability of a modular wooden building even up to 200–300 years. This article is a review and presents the possibility of producing frame buildings in Europe (Poland) in accordance with the applicable standards, including a heat transfer coefficient U = 2 [W/(m²·K]. In Poland, wooden frame buildings can be traced back to the 14th century. Wooden frame buildings and modular wooden frame buildings were produced even earlier in Norway. Wooden construction continued in the mid-1800s in various forms (with wooden filling and/or panels). In the mid-1900s (1941), certain dimensioning became regulated by law, which then applied to different types of insulation fillings. Prefabricated modular wood frame houses were common in the 1960s.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".