MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404033169 · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.001

Unveiling the potential for decarbonization of the building sector: A comparative study of technological and non-technological low-carbon strategies

2024· article· en· W4404033169 on OpenAlex
Sogand Shahmohammadi, Marianne Pedinotti-Castelle, Ben Amor

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Production and Consumption · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon fibersTechnological changeEconomicsEconomic systemEngineeringEngineering physicsMaterials scienceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an urgent need to mitigate carbon emissions in the building sector, particularly from existing buildings. The existing literature focuses predominantly on technological strategies such as low-carbon materials. This prompts the question: Can technological strategies alone drive the decarbonization of buildings, or are non-technological strategies also essential? Although recent research considers the benefits of the latter, studies assessing the potential of non-technological strategies for decarbonization of buildings are lacking because of the challenges involved in evaluating the indirect impacts and potential trade-offs associated with these strategies such as their ripple effects on mobility. This study pioneers a comparative assessment to evaluate the environmental mitigation potential of non-technological strategies (adaptation, a subset of the sharing economy, and behavioral changes) against technological strategies (low-carbon materials, retrofitting, and recycled materials) to ascertain the effectiveness of non-technological approaches. Through life cycle assessment , this study extends beyond solely evaluating the GHG reduction potential to assess the overall environmental mitigation capacity. A single-family house in Montreal was used as a reference scenario. With significant mitigation potential observed from a non-technological perspective, the results robustly reveal that the adaptation scenario surpasses all scenarios, including retrofitting, which is the primary mitigation strategy for existing buildings, by up to 50 % and 41 % at the midpoint and damage levels, respectively. Furthermore, the adaptation scenario potentially provides sufficiency by saving considerable amounts of material and energy, thereby alleviating the environmental impact of the production and use stages by up to 27 % and 15 %, respectively. This study also evaluates the combined effects of adaptation and retrofitting for existing buildings, revealing by up to 8 % greater environmental benefits at the midpoint and damage levels than in the adaptation scenario individually. These results highlight the potential of non-technological strategies that are currently overlooked in the building sector. However, their implementation requires fewer resources and less energy than technological changes. Therefore, further investigation is warranted to explore how adopting these strategies, along with technological ones, is advantageous.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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