MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009533446 · doi:10.1155/2014/654158

A Review of the Wood Pellet Value Chain, Modern Value/Supply Chain Management Approaches, and Value/Supply Chain Models

2014· review· en· W2009533446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie M. Hughes, Chander Shahi, Reino Pulkki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Renewable Energy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainDemand chainProfitability indexValue chainSupply chain managementValue (mathematics)Supply chain risk managementBusinessService managementIndustrial organizationComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reviewed 153 peer-reviewed sources to provide identification of modern supply chain management techniques and exploration of supply chain modeling, to offer decision support to managers. Ultimately, the review is intended to assist member-companies of supply chains, mainly producers, improve their current management approaches, by directing them to studies that may be suitable for direct application to their supply chains and value chains for improved efficiency and profitability. We found that information on supply chain management and modeling techniques in general is available. However, few Canadian-based published studies exist regarding a demand-driven modeling approach to value/supply chain management for wood pellet production. Only three papers were found specifically on wood pellet value chain analysis. We propose that more studies should be carried out on the value chain of wood pellet manufacturing, as well as demand-driven management and modeling approaches with improved demand forecasting methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Renewable EnergySame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207