MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042330842 · doi:10.1353/cpp.2012.0003

Energy Use and GHG Emissions in the Quebec Pulp and Paper Industry, 1990–2006

2012· article· en· W2042330842 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julie Adès, Jean‐Thomas Bernard, Patrick González

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasPulp (tooth)Environmental scienceFossil fuelElectricityWaste managementNatural resource economicsPulp and paper industryAgricultural economicsEnvironmental engineeringEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Quebec pulp and paper industry fell by more than 30 percent from 1990 to 2006. We use an energy demand model to analyze the contributions to this decrease of energy prices, product mix, technological change, and biomass use. The product mix is made of pulp, and cardboard, and paper. Pulp is an intermediate product for the industry, but not necessarily so for mills; vertical integration varies across mills and presents different opportunities to transfer heat between stages of production. Chemical and mechanical pulping processes are used to form two groups of pulp and paper mills. We find that changes of product mixes contributed the most to reduce GHG emissions, followed to a lesser extent by increases of fuel prices relative to electricity. The estimated electricity and fuel price elasticities are low. However it is still possible to significantly reduce GHG emissions by substituting natural gas for heavy fuel oil; such a substitution could be brought about by a small change of their relative price.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207