REHOUSE public report: Social Life Cycle Assessment Plan (S-LCA) for the 4 local contexts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: The present document is the REHOUSE public report D1.5 “Social Life Cycle Assessment Plan (S-LCA) for the 4 local contexts”, developed within work package (WP) 1 in the framework of the Horizon Europe project REHOUSE. WP1 deals with the “Social innovation for people-centric renovation processes” and contains five deliverables. D1.5 displays the methodology of the s-LCA that will be followed in order to investigate the social perspective of the innovative RPs (Renovation Packages) and conventional interventions implemented to the project’s four demo sites. More specifically, the social aspect assessment of the renovation action will look into the potential positive or negative social impacts of the implemented solutions on different stakeholder groups during the pilots’ entire life cycle. The main goal of the deliverable is to present the method developed in WP1 (Task 1.4) to assess and evaluate the social and socio-economic impacts associated with the renovation process and the continued use of the building.This deliverable has been developed by CERTH (Task 1.4 leader) in collaboration with the partners that are involved in this task and includes all the activities concerning the preparation of all the necessary actions with the aim of examining the social impact of the proposed innovative renovation packages and conventional activities considering the construction and operational stages of the life cycle. In order for the foreseen work to be implemented, a 4-stage methodology is followed. The activities performed within this report consist of the implementation of the proposed 4-stage methodology, which includes setting the goal and scope of the s-LCA, building a social life cycle inventory through a two -step accroach encompasses literature review and UNEP Guidelines for s-LCA with focus on the identification of the stakeholder categories, relevant social topics and indicators, preparing for the life cycle impact assessment with a specific framework implemented, and guidelines for the analysis and interpretation of the LCA outcomes for the retrofitting processes and renovation packages, as well as the development of dedicated questionnaires to collect the necessary data in order to support the implementation of the s-LCA. The implementation of a s-LCA for retrofitting processes is important as it takes into account existing, and often overlooked, social needs, and can highlight problematic areas allowing for their examination and potential optimization in future renovation scenarios.This document is structured into 4 main chapters, Chapter 1 provides the Introduction, and Chapter 2 presents through a literature review the current situation of the global and European social aspects of house renovation. Chapter 3 focuses on the definition of the s-LCA methodology with a detailed description of each of the different stages in order to assess the social aspects of the four REHOUSE renovated demo sites. Also, the development of the specific questionnaires and the way that will be distributed by the demo leaders are included. In Chapter 4 the conclusion and a recapitulation of the work that took place in the deliverable are presented. Further public reports of the REHOUSE project: Publications – REHOUSE
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 it