Initiatives Supporting Timber Constructions in Finland, Slovenia and Sweden.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presented at the IUFRO 2017 Division 5 Conference "Forest Sector Innovations for a Greener Future", Vancouver, BC, June 12-16, 2017, 18p. Initiatives Supporting Timber Constructions in Finland, Slovenia and SwedenManja KITEK KUZMAN, Katja LÄHTINEN, Dick SANDBERGUniversity of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Wood Science and Technology, Slovenia manja.kuzman@bf.uni-lj.siUniversity of Vaasa, Faculty of Business Studies, Department of Marketing, The University Consortium of Seinäjoki, Finland klahtine@uwasa.fiLuleå University of Technology, Wood Science and Engineering, Swedendick.sandberg@ltu.seAbstractFinland, Slovenia and Sweden are the three most forested countries in the European Union. While Finland and Sweden have a long tradition of building with wood, most housing in Slovenia were made with brick and stone. In Finland, knowledge of wood, an age-old building material, is actively preserved and enhanced. New wood buildings gain a contemporary twist, and are a significant part of the building stock in Finland. Swedish long tradition with timber construction is going from strength to strength thanks to the development of advanced, modern day timber structures. Sweden’s national building code has allowed the construction of multi-storey timber housing since the mid1990s. Builders and architects know that timber is not only an economical building material but that it has the added bonus of being climate friendly. Though few in number, most Slovenian timber buildings combine contemporary styling with energy efficiency measures that bring them close to passive house standards. Slovenia’s construction industry is widely recognized as advanced in the field of low energy buildings. As energy-efficient building methods gain importance, timber passive houses can play an increasingly important role in the future.In this paper, the Finnish, Slovenian and Swedish initiatives and legalization supporting timber constructions will be presented in relation to current European regulations with an emphasis on the use of wood as a sustainable architectural construction material for the future
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".