MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018636409 · doi:10.5558/tfc87061-1

Energy from forest biomass in Ontario: Getting beyond the promise

2011· article· en· W2018636409 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Warren Mabee, Jaconette Mirck, Rashmi Chandra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)BioenergyBiofuelBusinessEnvironmental scienceRenewable energyElectricityNatural resource economicsEnergy supplyAgricultural economicsEnvironmental protectionForestryWaste managementEconomicsEnergy (signal processing)GeographyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent decline in Ontario’s forest sector has resulted in the idling or closure of many mills, creating an opportunityfor forest-derived bioenergy supported by the Ontario Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Combined heat and powerproduction from forest biomass seems to provide an optimal balance between energy supplied and employment opportunities.This option could provide Ontario with 5.3% of electricity and 1.5% of heat energy needs. The province couldsustainably support up to 12 60-MW installations. Five key recommendations are advanced, including the need for abioenergy strategy within the province, options for developing funding for this sector, and the possibility of creating abioenergy network using existing research assets within Ontario. Key words: forest sector, Green Energy and Green Economy Act, combined heat and power, black liquor gasification,wood pellets, liquid biofuels for transport, ethanol, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, forest biomass supply

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207