MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412754754 · doi:10.11159/iccste25.241

Life Cycle Assessment of Cementitious Bricks

2025· article· en· W4412754754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdel Razzaq Abu Othman, Al Baraa Tarnini, Ahmed Hassan, İmran Ali, Maher AlHamad, Serter Atabay

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementitiousLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMetallurgyCementProduction (economics)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction sector heavily employs cementitious bricks due to their high durability and versatility.The entire manufacturing process of cementitious bricks and their utilization resulted in severe environmental impacts, including raw material exhaustion, the release of greenhouse gases, and the creation of waste products.This paper evaluates the sustainability implications of cementitious bricks using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method through their entire lifecycle, starting from material extraction and ending at disposal.The analysis showed that the production stage emerges as the most damaging phase because it leads to substantial resource depletion and emission release.The implementation of waste management offers environmental benefits by lowering individual hazards, but it simultaneously produces additional environmental difficulties.Furthermore, visual network diagrams demonstrate that the release of emissions from brick production leads to substantial climate-associated damage and health consequences.A possible sustainable method to overcome waste produced by cementitious bricks is to utilize Waste Tyre Rubber (WTR) as an alternative to the sand component.In summary, this research shows the necessity for improving processes of brick manufacturing, waste management, and ecological alternatives.The study strengthens the movement toward environmentally friendly building materials because it demonstrates their ability to preserve construction standards while decreasing environmental deterioration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207