Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is much interest from both the construction industry and government to develop new pathways for salvaging and recycling wood products there has not been significant movement in imple-menting large scale wood recycling initiatives. Despite having one of the strictest recycling programs in the country, the city of Vancouver still a significant construction and demolition (C&D) waste problem. The Zero Waste Policies from Metro Vancouver Municipalities has allowed 78% (1.3 million tonnes) of all waste streams to be diverted from regional landfills, but wood C&D waste (31% of all C&D waste) still largely ends up in the landfill.1,2 Given that about 57% of new buildings in Vancouver are light-wood type buildings and the Vancouver Landfill is slated to be decommissioned in 2037, the city needs a strategy to divert these large volumes of wood from being landfilled.3 This proj-ect presents a method to recycle salvaged wood from deconstructed light-wood buildings and use those materials in new deconstructa-ble assemblies. Common wood waste such as dimensional lumber, plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), laminated strand lumber (LSL),and laminated veneer lumber(LVL) can be recycled into new wood products including finger-jointed lumber, OSB, OSB/LSL or Plywood/LVL crosslam tiles, and wood fibre insulation. Typical light- wood frame construction can then be altered to incorporate these recycled materials and to facilitate deconstruction and further reuse. This project proposes that with proper recycling infrastructure and construction practices the value of wood extracted from the urban environment can be maintained across multiple generations of build-ings creating a true circular economy of wood materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.311 | 0.133 |
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".