MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100050548 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n3p152

The Carbon Footprint of an East African Forestry Enterprise

2011· article· en· W2100050548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacopo Parigiani, Aman A. Desai, Roselyne Mariki, Reid Miner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Council for Air and Stream ImprovementWorld Bank Group
KeywordsCarbon footprintRenewable energyAfforestationGreenhouse gasCoalEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsFossil fuelElectricityForestryBusinessAgricultural economicsEnvironmental protectionAgroforestryGeographyEconomicsWaste managementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green Resources AS, a plantation, carbon offset, forest products, and renewable energy company with operations in Eastern Africa, calculated carbon footprints for 2008 and 2009. In both years, the footprint was dominated by removals of CO2 from the atmosphere attributable to afforestation. These removals were more than 17 times the emissions from the company’s value chain. The largest difference between the 2008 and 2009 footprints was due to loss of forest carbon caused by fire. Otherwise, the most important changes in the footprint were related to plantation expansion and growth, and increased output of products in 2009, which caused increases in several types of emissions. The remaining elements of the footprint (manufacturing, forestry operations, transport, and upstream emissions related to non-fibrous inputs, fuels, and electricity) were approximately equal. The use of the charcoal manufactured by the company avoided coal-related emissions equal to approximately one-quarter of the company’s value chain emissions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207