Context-specific assessment methods for life cycle-related environmental impacts caused by buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report focuses on methodological issues related to the determination, assessment and presentation of the environmental performance of buildings. The purpose of this report is to provide the foundations to responsible parties for further developing their specific methods to assess the primary energy demand, GHG emissions and further environmental impacts of buildings and to increase the mainstreaming of practice globally. As far as possible, this should lead to a standardization of methods used worldwide. Where this goal cannot be achieved, methodological differences can be at least identified. The specific objectives of this report are to: clarify methodological questions that have been shown as significant but are under-addressed in the analysis of methods currently in use in the Annex 72 participating countries provide a consistent and transparent basis for a methodology and reporting structure for environmental performance assessment in line with international standards to enable comparability and usability of results contribute to the interpretation and supplementation of international standards to improve their applicability and support their dissemination promote long-term and life cycle-based thinking, by encouraging the early consideration of likely future environmental impacts regarding maintenance, repair and replacement as well as of durability and adaptability of building components and the building as a whole contribute to the overall efforts of national governments and standard makers to guide construction and real estate industry on how to respond to climate change promote the application of principles for circular economy by encouraging the early consideration of the deconstructability of buildings and building components and quantification of their reuse, recycling and/or recovery potential enable benchmarking and target-setting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".