MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551180473 · doi:10.13073/fpj-d-16-00031

Estimating Mill Residue Surplus in Canada: A Spatial Forest Fiber Cascade Modeling Approach

2016· article· en· W2551180473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saeed Ghafghazi, Kyle Lochhead, Anne-Helen Mathey, Nicklas Forsell, Sylvain Leduc, Warren Mabee, Gary Bull

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillCascadeResidue (chemistry)Environmental scienceFiberPulp and paper industryForestryEngineeringMaterials scienceGeographyChemistryComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The potential development of a Canadian forest-based bioeconomy requires an assessment of both fiber availability and associated marginal supply costs. To a large extent, the bioeconomy is expected to rely on wood fiber made available through primary products, sawnwood, and pulp production processing streams. Therefore, it is important to understand the regional wood fiber flows and mill residue availability through various processing streams. In this study, we developed a spatially explicit Forest Fiber Cascade Model (FCM) to estimate regional fiber flows and availability of untapped residue surplus. The FCM was calibrated to 2013 production levels, and we evaluated the wood fiber cascade through existing forest industry in Canada. The results show that, under current conditions, there is limited availability of surplus mill residues in Canada, especially in the Eastern provinces. It is therefore critical to consider the impacts on regional fiber flows and feedstock availability to the secondary industries when designing feedstock supply strategies and policies for the emerging forest-based industries.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Products JournalSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207