MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1802730896 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.196915

Bioenergy trade, a theoretical analysis

2013· article· en· W1802730896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean‐Marc Bourgeon, Hélène Ollivier

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioenergyGreenhouse gasRenewable energyFossil fuelBiofuelNatural resource economicsEuropean unionAgricultural economicsRenewable fuelsInternational tradeEconomicsBusinessEngineeringWaste managementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though the potential of bioenergy in the mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHG) coming from fossil energies is strongly debated, several developed countries such as the United States, the European Union and Japan have for several years already outlined ambitious objectives of incorporating bioenergy into their energy package in order to reduce their GHG emissions, notably in the field of transportation. Bioenergies are presented as an alternative to fossil fuels that is both renewable and relatively clean. The policies implemented give rise to little in the way of imports and yet, for biofuels to reach a 10% share of fuel consumption in transports, the United States, Canada and the EU would need to use 30%, 36% and 72% of their farm lands respectively (Von Lampe, 2006). A very simplified theoretical model of the world economy shows that opening up Bioenergy to trade would result in an increase in GHG emissions if Southern countries have a comparative advantage in the industrial sector, or conversely, a reduction thanks to bioenergy imports if Northern countries have the best performing industrial sector.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207