MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395038839 · doi:10.1038/s41597-024-03190-7

RASMI: Global ranges of building material intensities differentiated by region, structure, and function

2024· article· en· W4395038839 on OpenAlexafffund
Tomer Fishman, Alessio Mastrucci, Yoav Peled, Shoshanna Saxe, Bas van Ruijven

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisIsrael Science FoundationMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryCanada Research ChairsEuropean Commission
KeywordsDemolitionResource (disambiguation)Metric (unit)Environmental scienceFunction (biology)Computer scienceEnvironmental resource managementCivil engineeringEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction materials used in buildings have large and growing implications for global material flows and emissions. Material Intensity (MI) is a metric that measures the mass of construction materials per unit of a building's floor area. MIs are used to model buildings' materials and assess their resource use and environmental performance, critical to global climate commitments. However, MI data availability and quality are inconsistent, incomparable, and limited, especially for regions in the Global South. To address these challenges, we present the Regional Assessment of buildings' Material Intensities (RASMI), a new dataset and accompanying method of comprehensive and consistent representative MI value ranges that embody the variability inherent in buildings. RASMI consists of 3072 MI ranges for 8 construction materials in 12 building structure and function types across 32 regions covering the entire world. The dataset is reproducible, traceable, and updatable, using synthetic data when required. It can be used for estimating historical and future material flows and emissions, assessing demolition waste and at-risk stocks, and evaluating urban mining potentials.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations55
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207