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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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