Achieving carbon neutrality at single and multi-building complex levels – A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving carbon–neutral building stock by 2050 contributes to coping with the detrimental impacts of global warming since buildings account for almost 37% of final energy-related CO2 emissions. This paper reviews the publications on carbon neutrality (CN) feasibility at both single and multi-building complex scales. Publications are retrieved from the Scopus database, and the snowball method is used to find the most relevant studies. The paper addresses the primary question: “Is it possible to reach the life cycle carbon neutrality of buildings?”. Various information such as building life cycle carbon assessment, building characteristics (usage type and number of stories), climate type, mitigation measures, and simulation results are extracted, classified, and analyzed. Technically, reaching CN is feasible, but it is challenging given the need to implement multiple mitigation measures simultaneously, especially in the regions with low emissions intensity of the electricity grid, and may not always be economically feasible. A lack of successful case studies for large multi-building complexes, such as cities, is evident in the literature. It can be attributed to the limited availability of input data for carbon assessments as well as the complexity of simulations. Knowledge gaps in the literature and suggestions for future works are also discussed in detail. Due to the small number of studies on the topic, conclusive paths to reach the CN of buildings, specific to different climates and types of buildings, remain unclear, and thus, further research is necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".