MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117977742 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v14n2p38

Materials for Sustainability in Defence: Trends, Gaps, and Opportunities in Canadian Research

2025· article· W7117977742 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alison F. Mark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityClimate changeArcticSustainable energyThe arcticFocus (optics)Sustainability science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents a comprehensive review of North American research in Materials for Sustainability, with a focus on Canadian contributions and their potential applications in defence. A combined literature review and scientometric analysis of over 10,000 publications from 2014 to 2024 identified six major research domains: recycling, advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, low-carbon raw material production, alternative fuels, and energy storage technologies. Canadian research shows particular strength in biocomposites, green concrete, and hydrogen-related materials. The study highlights emerging trends, research momentum, and topic interconnectivity, offering insights into how materials science can support climate mitigation and adaptation. Defence applications include lightweighting, infrastructure resilience, and low-emission energy systems, especially for Arctic environments. The report concludes with recommendations for targeted R&D to advance sustainable materials in dual-use and defence applications.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.030
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicSustainable Development and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207