Life Cycle Assessment of Proofing Test Production on Printing Surfaces with Use of Carbon Footprint Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study represents a pioneering initiative in the printing industry, especially in Poland, which assessed the environmental impacts and eco-efficiency of proof printing through the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The process of proof printing on a target substrate was compared with the traditional hard proofing process, which requires trial printing in production conditions. The analysis adhered to the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, raw material use (e.g., plastics, water), and environmental toxicity. The innovative proofing on the target substrate process exhibits a lower environmental impact, as confirmed by the GHG emissions and plastic and water demand of the process. The GHG emissions were reduced from 2610 kg of CO2e to 68.4 kg of CO2e per functional unit (FU). The water demand for the proofing on the target substrate process was 40 times lower, and the plastic demand was also 40 times lower, decreasing to 20 kg per FU. The toxicity impact of the method based on the proofing system on the target substrate on living organisms is more than six times lower than that of the conventional method. The proof printing on the target substrate process offers an environmentally friendly alternative to the traditional hard proofing process, with lower GHG emissions and a lower environmental impact.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".