Defining an environmental index to compare light-frame wood wall assemblies using life-cycle assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The designer of a light-frame wood wall assembly should consider simultaneously several performance criteria in addition to the minimum requirements set by building codes. The different performance criteria being mostly studied and optimized independently, the search for the most suitable solution is however a complex problem. A research project was undertaken to develop a multicriteria analysis framework supporting the evaluation of improved factory-built wood-frame exterior walls. Evaluation methods and measuring scales were studied for a series of performance criteria. Within this work, a specific study looks at the definition of an appropriate performance index to compare the environmental impact of different wall assemblies, following a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The investigation is applied to a case study comparing five wall assemblies of a residential building in Quebec City (Canada). For the five alternatives, the life-cycle inventory (LCI) provided by the ATHENA™ Environmental Impact Estimator software is aggregated using three different life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods: IMPACT 2002+, Eco-indicator 99 and TRACI. The relative impacts of assembly components and of the operation energy source on the environmental performance of the assemblies are investigated by comparing midpoint and endpoint indicators. The study concludes to the acceptability, in this specific context, of using the climate change indicator as a surrogate for overall environmental performance index.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".