MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516222194 · doi:10.18331/brj2015.2.3.3

A multi-factor evaluation of Jatropha as a feedstock for biofuels: the case of sub-Saharan Africa

2015· article· en· W1516222194 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raphael M. Jingura, Reckson Kamusoko

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuel Research Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofuelJatrophaRaw materialBusinessPulp and paper industryBiotechnologyWaste managementEngineeringBiodieselBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a geographical region consisting of 49 countries, out of which, 39 countries have experiences with the cultivation of Jatropha curcas L. Since the year 2000 Jatropha production escalated in the region and peaked in around 2007/2008. The major drivers of this trend were claims made about Jatropha including include its ability to grow on marginal lands, high seed and oil yields, and drought tolerant, amongst other attributes. However, the reality has shown that these attributes have not been realised. The objective of the present paper is to analyse the performance of Jatropha as a biofuel feedstock in SSA based on agronomic, economic, social and environmental factors involved in its production. Evidences in SSA show that the major challenge with Jatropha cultivation has been low seed yields, ranging between 0.1 and 2 t/ha. This in turn has led to oil yields which are not sufficiently viable for use in production of biofuels such as biodiesel. There have also been reported challenges with production on wastelands, low use of inputs, unimproved planting materials and vulnerability to pests and diseases. These have negatively affected the performance of Jatropha causing the original claims made about this energy crop not materialised in the SSA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuel Research JournalSame topicBiodiesel Production and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207