Evaluation of environmental impacts of harvest residue-based bioenergy using radiative forcing analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “carbon neutrality” assumption plays an important role in the evaluation of the global warming potential (GWP) of bioenergy relative to fossil fuels. In the case of woody bioenergy, this assumption implies that the carbon dioxide emitted during the combustion of the biomass is equal to the carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere within that biomass. However, the collection and conversion of woody biomass requires energy inputs in various forms that produce emissions to the air or water. To be able to estimate the overall environmental burdens associated with converting woody biomass to bioenergy, and the net reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the atmosphere by avoiding the use of fossil fuel, a life cycle assessment (LCA) is the internationally recognized method of choice. However, the carbon neutrality of woody biomass and the environmental impacts associated with wood-based bioenergy are hotly debated in national and international arenas. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impacts of woody biomass-based bioenergy and proposes a GWP impact assessment methodology using radiative forcing for incorporating the dynamics of carbon sequestration, decomposition of residues and biomass processing in the life cycle assessment of bioenergy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".