MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Accounting of Forest Operations in FPInterface

2012· article· en· W2062121274 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mathieu Blouin, Denis Cormier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forest Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
FundersFPInnovations
KeywordsGreenhouse gasForest inventorySupply chainContext (archaeology)Carbon accountingSoftwareFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceEngineeringForest managementComputer scienceWaste managementBusinessAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developed by FPInnovations, FPInterface is an operational-level simulation platform for forest supply activities from the harvest site to the mill gate. The software can model, simulate and optimize forest operations directly from the GIS planning maps. The analysis is done at the block level for a forest management unit and provides the cost and volumes of all products harvested from the selected blocks. The basic platform allows for cost calculations of harvesting, road construction, transport and regeneration. Additional modules are also available for optimizing transport routes, biomass supply flow and cost estimates, operational scheduling and value chain decisions. The software offers a tactical and operational forest planning tool in the context of Canadian forest operations.FPInterface considers all fossil fuel inputs and biomass outputs based on product specifications, harvesting decisions, equipment selection, road network and stand conditions. Therefore, the software offers an opportunity for the development of functionalities for greenhouse gas emissions accounts and carbon budgets for woody feedstock. The main objective of this paper is to describe the calculation of carbon ratio in a module of the FPInterface software. Furthermore, a scenario analysis was conducted, where the usability of the module was demonstrated. The objectives of the analysis were to show the impact of tree size on carbon emissions and to compare different supply chains for biomass in terms of carbon ratios.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forest EngineeringSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207