MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388160294 · doi:10.3390/su152115407

Evaluation of Carbon Emission Factors in the Cement Industry: An Emerging Economy Context

2023· article· en· W4388160294 on OpenAlexaff
Sudipa Sarker, Golam Kabir

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementContext (archaeology)Production (economics)Emerging marketsConsumption (sociology)Low-carbon economyBusinessNatural resource economicsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental economicsEconomyEngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cement industry is a major contributor to carbon emissions, responsible for 5–8% of global emissions. This industry is expanding, particularly in emerging economies, and it is expected that CO2 emissions will rise by 4% by 2050. To address this critical concern, this paper identifies ten factors that contribute to carbon emissions in the cement production process through an extensive literature review and prioritises these factors using the Bayesian best–worst method. The data was gathered by conducting a methodical online survey with seven cement industry professionals in Bangladesh, with the aim of gaining insights into the emerging economy. The results illustrate that fuel burning and electricity consumption are the two greatest contributors to CO2 emissions in the cement production process. This research provides guidelines for cement industries in emerging economies on how to reduce CO2 emissions as well as suggesting areas of future research for sustainable cement production.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations105
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207