Sustainable Development of Recent High-Rise Timber Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High-rise timber building construction is becoming increasingly common across the world as construction and woodworking technology advances. The world is moving toward more sustainable development, and products like cross-laminated timber offer economical options for reducing the environmental impact. This chapter contributes to the theory and practice of sustainability assessment and extends the knowledge about high-rise timber buildings. The tallest timber buildings in different countries, such as Mjøstårnet and Treet in Norway and Brock Commons in Canada, are compared across the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social). According to previous research, none of the buildings are at the top in terms of sustainability, but the Brock Commons building in Canada has received the highest rank in all dimensions of sustainability. The issue of fire resistance for timber structures involves a paradox because it is widely recognized that heavy timber construction has outstanding fire resistance in severe fires. Design for burnout may require full or partial encapsulation of timber. Moreover, prefabrication of elements reduces duration and cost of projects. The goal of this chapter is to evaluate and assess the most effective modern high-rise timber buildings from both financial and environmental perspectives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".