Using Lean in Deconstruction Projects for Maximising the Reuse of Materials: A Canadian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction sector is considered a major consumer of virgin materials and a contributor to waste generation. Therefore, it is essential to rethink current waste management practices, for example, by applying circular economy principles to building demolition, such as deconstruction. Deconstruction involves dismantling a building with the aim of maintaining the highest possible value for its materials and maximising their recovery potential. This study aims to guide the construction sector towards deconstruction to support its efforts to transform itself toward a more sustainable industry. It focuses on a regional case study in the province of Québec (Canada), presenting five buildings to be deconstructed. First, this study presents the outcomes of our analysis of the current situation. Second, it identifies the issues and obstacles encountered and proposes avenues to improve the current process based on solutions identified in the literature and the recommendations of the manager, the contractor involved in the deconstruction project, as well as experts in the construction industry. Finally, it proposes an improved deconstruction process. Our research approach is inspired from Lean thinking and follows the Action Research methodology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".