MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150281449 · doi:10.2172/950498

Fort Yukon, Chalkyitsik, & Venetie Biomass Boiler Feasibility Study

2009· report· en· W2150281449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
ME Greg Koontz, William A. Wall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyBiomass (ecology)BusinessBoiler (water heating)Environmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementGeographyNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringWaste managementEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG) is a consortium of ten Gwich'in and Koyukon Athabascan tribes settled in 10 remote villages and are linked by the Yukon River System. The CATG mission is to maintain the Yukon Flats region as Indian Country by asserting traditional rights and taking responsibility for developing tribal technical capacity to manage the land and resources. It is the intent of CATG to explore and develop all opportunities for a renewable and self-sufficient energy program for each of the villages. CATG envisions utilization of forest resources both for construction and energy as one of the best long-term strategies for integrating the economic goals for the region as well as supporting the cultural and social issues. The intent for this feasibility project is to focus specifically on biomass utilization for heat, first, and for future electrical generation within the region, second. An initial determination has already been made regarding the importance of wood energy as a primary source of renewable energy to displace diesel fuel in the Yukon Flats region. A desktop study of other potential renewable resources was conducted in 2006.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207