MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127950618 · doi:10.22260/crc-csce-2025/0032

Embodied Carbon Optimization for Residential Building Design through Strategic Low-Carbon Material Configurations

2025· article· W7127950618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhifan Liu, Haibo Feng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding designCarbon fibersDesign methodsWork (physics)Production (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embodied carbon (EC) is becoming a dominant factor in energy-efficient buildings, often accounting for over 50% of their life-cycle emissions in new construction.Therefore, minimizing building EC emissions is imperative to meeting Canada's climate targets under the Paris Agreement and supporting the transition to a low-carbon built environment.Early design decisions, particularly in the selection and configuration of materials, play a critical role in achieving significant reductions in EC.Building on this premise, this paper investigates how EC performance can be optimized through the strategic use of lowcarbon material combinations, selected from a curated database of low-carbon alternatives.To illustrate this approach, a case study is conducted on a single-family residential building in British Columbia (BC), Canada.The study explores a range of possibilities for material usage, performing EC assessments for various scenarios and analyzing the resulting configurations to identify the optimal design.The results of the case study reveal that strategic combinations of low-carbon materials in key building components, such as foundations, and sheathing, can reduce EC by 24.19% compared to conventional construction methods.The carbon intensity decreases from 277.17 kg CO2e/m² to 210 kg CO2e/m², nearly meeting the benchmark for EC in new Part 9 homes in Vancouver, highlighting the potential to reduce building EC through strategic integration of low-carbon materials during early design phases.Through computational tools and life cycle assessment (LCA), it offers practical strategies to reduce EC while maintaining performance and aesthetics, supporting sustainable construction and climate goals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207