MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970776849 · doi:10.1142/s1464333209003373

CALCULATING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF A CHEMICAL PLANT: A CASE STUDY OF AKZONOBEL

2009· article· en· W1970776849 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael L. Stein, Anshuman Khare

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityAkzoNobel (Canada)
FundersAkzoNobel
KeywordsCarbon footprintGreenhouse gasChemical industryFugitive emissionsSustainabilityChemical plantEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersWaste managementNatural resource economicsGlobal warmingEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionEngineeringClimate changeEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is one of the key requirements for sustainable production and consumption, but while the Canadian chemical industry has been very successful in reducing emissions to water and air, and while non- CO 2 greenhouse gas emissions have been minimised as well, reduction of CO 2 emissions has been less successful. The industry itself forecasts that further reduction of CO 2 emissions will be minimal. On the other hand concerns about global warming are increasing, while at the same time the chemical industry increases its commitment to sustainability. Determining the carbon footprint of a chemical plant and of its products will help to identify more emissions reduction possibilities and is a necessary step for the further reduction of the chemical industry's environmental impact. Carbon footprint determination is a corporate goal for AkzoNobel, an international coatings and specialty chemicals company, but the carbon footprint is not yet established for many products, and the information available from the chemical industry is scarce. This paper presents a case study of AkzoNobel's Saskatoon Plant and its attempt to calculate and analyse the carbon footprint of the plant and its main products which are used in the potash industry.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207