MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203148288 · doi:10.2172/1037583

Michigan E85 Infrastructure

2012· report· en· W2203148288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachIncentiveQuarter (Canadian coin)Gallon (US)EngineeringBusinessTransport engineeringIncentive programOperations managementFinanceWaste managementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the final report for a grant-funded project to financially assist and otherwise provide support to projects that increase E85 infrastructure in Michigan at retail fueling locations. Over the two-year project timeframe, nine E85 and/or flex-fuel pumps were installed around the State of Michigan at locations currently lacking E85 infrastructure. A total of five stations installed the nine pumps, all providing cost share toward the project. By using cost sharing by station partners, the $200,000 provided by the Department of Energy facilitated a total project worth $746,332.85. This project was completed over a two-year timetable (eight quarters). The first quarter of the project focused on project outreach to station owners about the incentive on the installation and/or conversion of E85 compatible fueling equipment including fueling pumps, tanks, and all necessary electrical and plumbing connections. Utilizing Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) extensive knowledge of gasoline/ethanol infrastructure throughout Michigan, CEC strategically placed these pumps in locations to strengthen the broad availability of E85 in Michigan. During the first and second quarters, CEC staff approved projects for funding and secured contracts with station owners; the second through eighth quarters were spent working with fueling station owners to complete projects; the third through eighth quarters included time spent promoting projects; and beginning in the second quarter and running for the duration of the project was spent performing project reporting and evaluation to the US DOE. A total of 9 pumps were installed (four in Elkton, two in Sebewaing, one in East Lansing, one in Howell, and one in Whitmore Lake). At these combined station locations, a total of 192,445 gallons of E85, 10,786 gallons of E50, and 19,159 gallons of E30 were sold in all reporting quarters for 2011. Overall, the project has successfully displaced 162,611 gallons (2,663 barrels) of petroleum, and reduced regional GHG emissions by 375 tons in the first year of station deployment.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207