Unified life-cycle cost–benefit analysis framework and critical review for sustainable retrofit of Canada's existing buildings using mass timber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the possibilities and challenges of using mass timber as a sustainable alternative for retrofitting existing buildings in Canada. To create the knowledge foundation on which to devise a holistic framework tailored to the specific characteristics of Canada's built environment, a detailed analysis of the types, geographical distribution, structural, and energy features of the local building stock is first presented. Then, previous strategies for enhancing and upgrading existing buildings with engineered timber are reviewed, classified, and evaluated. Finally, to explore economic and environmental implications, a detailed assessment of available life-cycle cost–benefit analysis approaches is conducted alongside their adaptation to Canada's building context. The findings of this paper can inform policymakers, builders, and designers in developing more sustainable building retrofit practices, design, and regulations, in line with Canada's efforts toward net zero emissions.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".