MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2421519556 · doi:10.1002/bbb.1659

Multi‐spatial analysis of forest residue utilization for bioenergy

2016· article· en· W2421519556 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioenergyEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Environmental economicsScenario analysisRenewable energyAviationEnergy independenceEnvironmental resource managementAgricultural engineeringBiofuelBusinessWaste managementEngineeringEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The alternative energy sector is expanding quickly in the USA since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Increased interest in wood‐based bioenergy has led to the need for robust modeling methods to analyze woody biomass operations at landscape scales. However, analyzing woody biomass operations in regions like the US Inland Northwest is difficult due to highly variable terrain and wood characteristics. We developed the Forest Residue Economic Assessment Model ( FREAM ) to better integrate with Geographical Information Systems and overcome analytical modeling limitations. FREAM analyzes wood‐based bioenergy logistics systems and provides a modeling platform that can be readily modified to analyze additional study locations. We evaluated three scenarios to test the FREAM ’s utility: a local‐scale scenario in which a catalytic pyrolysis process produces gasoline from 181 437 Mg yr −1 of forest residues, a regional‐scale scenario that assumes a biochemical process to create aviation fuel from 725 748 Mg yr −1 of forest residues, and an international scenario that assumes a pellet mill producing pellets for international markets from 272 155 Mg yr −1 of forest residues. The local scenario produced gasoline for a modeled cost of $22.33 GJ −1 * , the regional scenario produced aviation fuel for a modeled cost of $35.83 GJ −1 and the international scenario produced pellets for a modeled cost of $10.51 GJ −1 . Results show that incorporating input from knowledgeable stakeholders in the designing of a model yields positive results. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.211 · 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