MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001748184 · doi:10.5558/tfc87033-1

Biomass availability in eastern Ontario for bioenergy and wood pellet initiatives

2011· article· en· W2001748184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersMitacs
KeywordsBioenergyPulpwoodPelletizingBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceRenewable energyBiofuelPelletAgroforestryPulp and paper industryPelletsAgricultural economicsBusinessWaste managementAgronomyEngineeringEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in wood-based bioenergy and pelletization is growing in Ontario, and the province is taking steps to encouragethese new technologies. A survey of eastern Ontario sawmills was conducted to assess residue production and availabilityfor bioenergy and pellet applications. Approximately 259 000 oven dry tonnes of sawmill residues are produced annuallyin eastern Ontario, but most of this fibre is absorbed by existing markets and would not be available for bioenergy orpellet initiatives. However, another source of wood fibre exists that is both abundant and unutilized: traditional pulpwood.While establishment costs of bioenergy and pellet facilities are high, pulpwood is locally available in large quantities.Given the right incentives, bioenergy and pelletization could provide alternative energy sources and support the forestindustry and rural economy. Key words: sawmill residue, wood biomass, bioenergy, pellets, eastern Ontario

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.192 · 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