Views of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Manufacturer Representatives around the World on CLT Practices and Its Future Outlook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to its recent emergence, there is a limited body of global market research available on CLT. Presently, the literature lacks comprehensive understanding regarding the present state, varied uses, and future outlook of CLT construction at a global level. The objective of this article is to address this knowledge gap by conducting semi-structured, in-depth interviews with CLT manufacturer representatives around the world, including Austria, Italy, Czech Republic, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Japan, Canada, and Uruguay. Critical findings emphasized that (1) the predominant mention was about the insufficient knowledge and experience within construction professionals; (2) a clear need for heightened expertise and training in the domain of CLT was underscored; (3) CLT was regarded as a favorable choice in efforts to combat climate change; (4) CLT was deemed highly appropriate for settings marked by variable climatic conditions; (5) CLT producers, particularly those with comprehensive, vertically integrated operations encompassing the entire processing cycle, remained unaffected by the rise in raw material costs; (6) the COVID-19 pandemic generally yielded positive impacts on the CLT market; (7) primary application of CLT, as emphasized by most manufacturers, is in residential and institutional projects; and (8) most manufacturers noted the expansive and boundless opportunities within the market, especially considering the climate crises as potential future avenues for the utilization of CLT. This article aims to advance the widespread adoption of CLT within the global construction sector. It will achieve this by elucidating the obstacles, possibilities, and forthcoming prospects associated with CLT.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".