MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387671491 · doi:10.3390/su152014892

Life Cycle Assessment of Road Pavements That Incorporate Waste Reuse: A Systematic Review and Guidelines Proposal

2023· review· en· W4387671491 on OpenAlexaff
Taísa Menezes Medina, Jo�ão Luiz Calmon, Darli Rodrigues Vieira, Alencar Bravo, Thalya Vieira

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito Santo
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentReuseScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)GuidelineEngineeringSustainabilityEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental planningWaste managementConstruction engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that has been widely used to evaluate the environmental impact of products and processes throughout entire life cycles. In this context, the reuse of waste in paved road construction is a practice that has received increasing attention as a sustainable alternative to solid waste disposal. This article presents a systematic review of existing studies on the LCA of paved roads that incorporate waste reuse and proposes a guideline for LCA in this context. Several criteria were analyzed in the articles, and the results showed that only 5% of the articles followed all the recommendations set out in ISO 14040. The proposed guideline aims to provide guidance for future research and includes recommendations for each of the steps involved in LCA, from defining the objectives and scope of the study to interpreting the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0290.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207