MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947911957 · doi:10.4224/40003365

National whole-building life cycle assessment practitioner’s guide

2024· standard· en· W6947911957 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2024
Typestandard
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaTreasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasConsistency (knowledge bases)Life-cycle assessmentGovernment (linguistics)Compliance (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction represents a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada and around the world. As more governments and organizations across Canada are setting requirements and reduction targets on the embodied carbon of construction of their projects or in their jurisdictions, there is a need to provide detailed guidance to enable greater consistency in the methodologies, boundaries and assumptions used in whole building life cycle assessments (wbLCAs) for Part 3 buildings intended to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

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)0.008
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.048

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207