MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep ‘Climate’ Retrofit: Assessing Life-Cycle Thinking Of Emission Calculators In Construction

2023· article· en· W4413974096 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Osborne, Sarrah Kayed, Frédéric Verrer-Paquette, Daniel Chung, Michael Jemtrud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHydro-Québec
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringConstruction engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining the existing built environment is crucial to achieving substantial, near-term carbon and emissions reductions in the construction industry. Retrofitting existing building stock to avoid embodied emissions from new construction and upgrading and electrifying existing buildings reduces building operational emissions. For the buildings constructed between now and 2050, more than half of their emissions will be from embodied carbon. Estimates show that reusing and retrofitting the most carbon-intensive parts of buildings – the structure and envelope – can save 50% to 75% of the embodied carbon emitted by constructing similar new buildings. Yet, a significant challenge to adopting low-carbon building practices in deep energy retrofit projects is the complexity of calculating the embodied and operational emissions of proposed designs according to the needs and priorities of various stakeholders. Recently, tools for calculating buildings’ embodied and operational emissions have been introduced and are being rapidly adopted by industry stakeholders to aid decision-making. Yet, these assessment tools often produce significantly different results, depending on the assumptions and calculations used to weigh various factors. The varied and sometimes contradictory results create uncertainty for designers and building stakeholders throughout the design process, and a better understanding of the impact these tools and their assumptions have on the design process 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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207