“Post Sustainability” Construction - Concepts for Regenerative Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of sustainability is becoming gradually obsolete as it in practice place concerns for human society over nature. The global community needs to get to terms with other concepts that can mitigate these systemic issues of “sustainability”. A series of alternative concepts with a stronger focus on maintaining and developing nature has emerged. This includes some far from the built environment such a doughnut economy and resource economy. And other concepts which is closer, such as “cradle to cradle”, “circular economy” and “regenerative and distributive” and “sustainable transition”. While the recognition of a change away from sustainability is hardly news in academic communities, they are still far from contemporaplary practices in the built environment. Here we choose to focus on regenerative building as a promising set of concepts for the built environment, more specifically platforms of circulating used building materials. The contribution asks, how can dynamics of the contemporary built environment be directed towards regenerative building? And can circular platforms be accommodated to support regeneration? Empirically we cover this by studying three platforms in eight countries including Germany, Denmark and Italy. Methodologically we use a desk study carried out over several years. We take a giant leap from the macro oriented concepts into a micro phenomenon; that of trading platforms of used building materials, investigating whether these platforms can become vehicles of the new economics. The platforms are slowly emerging in all countries, but the cases exhibit very different embeddedness in contemporary markets including one that has developed on a long-term subvention from public innovation programs, another on purely classical building markets for materials and the third has managed to emerge into an ecosystem of platforms across Germany on a mixed private- public economy. None of them has experienced local public support through regulation or public clients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".