MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1698614569 · doi:10.2172/929225

Development of a performance-based industrial energy efficiency indicator for corn refining plants.

2006· report· en· W1698614569 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gale Boyd, USEPA

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy Efficiency and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryUniversity of CalgaryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPerformance indicatorVariety (cybernetics)Environmental economicsWork (physics)Efficient energy useRefining (metallurgy)Energy consumptionEngineeringAgricultural engineeringComputer scienceBusinessMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations that implement strategic energy management programs have the potential to achieve sustained energy savings if the programs are carried out properly. A key opportunity for achieving energy savings that plant managers can take is to determine an appropriate level of energy performance by comparing their plant's performance with that of similar plants in the same industry. Manufacturing facilities can set energy efficiency targets by using performance-based indicators. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its ENERGY STAR{reg_sign} program, has been developing plant energy performance indicators (EPIs) to encourage a variety of U.S. industries to use energy more efficiently. This report describes work with the corn refining industry to provide a plant-level indicator of energy efficiency for facilities that produce a variety of products--including corn starch, corn oil, animal feed, corn sweeteners, and ethanol--for the paper, food, beverage, and other industries in the United States. Consideration is given to the role that performance-based indicators play in motivating change; the steps needed to develop indicators, including interacting with an industry to secure adequate data for an indicator; and the actual application and use of an indicator when complete. How indicators are employed in the EPA's efforts to encourage industries to voluntarily improve their use of energy is discussed as well. The report describes the data and statistical methods used to construct the EPI for corn refining plants. Individual equations are presented, as are the instructions for using them in an associated Excel spreadsheet.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Efficiency and ManagementFrench-language works237,207