MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2220286395 · doi:10.5539/sar.v5n3p56

A Watershed Level Economic Analysis of Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstock Production with Consideration of Water Quality

2016· article· en· W2220286395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin-Young Moon, Jeffrey Apland, Solomon Folle, D. J. Mulla

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorn stoverCellulosic ethanolEnvironmental scienceWatershedStoverBioenergyBiofuelBiomass (ecology)AgronomyCropForestryWaste managementGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>National policy supports the production of renewable energy from cellulosic feedstocks such as corn stover and switchgrass. These feedstocks have contrasting impacts on water quality. In this study, the regional supply response for cellulosic biofuel from these two feedstocks is estimated for the Le Sueur Watershed in South-Central Minnesota. The impacts of the resulting agricultural production activities on water quality in this northern corn belt watershed are also estimated. The Le Sueur River is a tributary of the Minnesota River, which in turn feeds into the Mississippi. The analysis is conducted with a multi-region, endogenous supply, mathematical programming model of the agriculture sector in the watershed. A unique aspect of the analysis is the spatial detail used in the production model. Results from a previous simulation analysis conducted with the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model are used in the economic model to simulate the effects of the feedstock supply response on water quality in the Le Sueur. Sediment and nutrient losses from corn stover production make switchgrass more promising on environmental grounds, but the relatively high cost of production causes switchgrass to cover only a small part of crop land if farmers have unrestricted choice about how to supply cellulosic feedstocks.</p>

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207