Potential opportunities to utilize mountain pine beetle-killed biomass as wood pellet feedstock in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of renewable forms of energy, such as bioenergy produced from wood pellets, can serve to offset fossil fuel use and, hence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union is the world’s largest user of wood pellets and British Columbia has been one of its largest external suppliers. British Columbia is currently grappling with the largest mountain pine beetle outbreak in its history. While this outbreak is expected to decrease the future timber supply in the Province, it has been suggested that one potential benefit of the mountain pine beetle outbreak is that it may provide a large amount of biomass that can be used for bioenergy production. Here we evaluate estimates of the amount of biomass available for bioenergy production in British Columbia and quantify the effects of the mountain pine beetle infestation on wood pellet feedstock supply chains. Our results, though subject to significant uncertainties, suggest that mountain pine beetle-killed wood is unlikely to be a substantial constituent of wood pellet feedstocks unless substantial subsidies are provided to offset higher harvesting costs. Even if such subsidies are implemented, it is likely that harvest residues will constitute an increasing proportion of wood pellet feedstocks as the volume of beetle-killed wood becomes depleted. Therefore, it is imperative that wood pellet producers improve the cost efficiency of harvest residue collection if they are to remain competitive in the European marketplace.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".