MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606523391 · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12445

Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States

2017· article· en· W2606523391 on OpenAlexaff
Virginia H. Dale, Keith L. Kline, Esther S. Parish, Annette Cowie, Robert Emory, Robert W. Malmsheimer, Raphael Slade, C. Tattersall Smith, T. Bently Wigley, Niclas Scott Bentsen, Göran Berndes, Pierre Y. Bernier, Miguel Brandão, Helena L. Chum, Rocío Díaz‐Chavez, Gustaf Egnell, Leif Gustavsson, Jörg Schweinle, Inge Stupak, Paul Trianosky, Arnaldo Walter, Carly Whittaker, Mark Brown, G. M. Chescheir, Ioannis Dimitriou, Caspar Donnison, Alison Goss Eng, Kevin P. Hoyt, Jennifer C. Jenkins, Kristen Johnson, C. Levesque, Victoria Lockhart, M. Cristina Negri, Jami E. Nettles, Maria Wellisch

Bibliographic record

VenueGCB Bioenergy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Toronto
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryBioenergy Technologies OfficeUT-BattelleBattelleEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBioenergyBusinessEcosystem servicesSustainabilityRenewable energyCertified woodForest managementIncentiveNatural resource economicsContext (archaeology)AgroforestryBiodiversityEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEcosystemGeographyEconomicsEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ongoing debate about costs and benefits of wood‐pellet based bioenergy production in the southeastern United States (SE USA) requires an understanding of the science and context influencing market decisions associated with its sustainability. Production of pellets has garnered much attention asUSexports have grown from negligible amounts in the early 2000s to 4.6 million metric tonnes in 2015. Currently, 98% of these pellet exports are shipped to Europe to displace coal in power plants. We ask, ‘How is the production of wood pellets in theSE USAaffecting forest systems and the ecosystem services they provide?’ To address this question, we review current forest conditions and the status of the wood products industry, how pellet production affects ecosystem services and biodiversity, and what methods are in place to monitor changes and protect vulnerable systems. Scientific studies provide evidence that wood pellets in theSE USAare a fraction of total forestry operations and can be produced while maintaining or improving forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are protected by the requirement to utilize loggers trained to apply scientifically based best management practices in planning and implementing harvest for the export market. Bioenergy markets supplement incomes to private rural landholders and provide an incentive for forest management practices that simultaneously benefit water quality and wildlife and reduce risk of fire and insect outbreaks. Bioenergy also increases the value of forest land to landowners, thereby decreasing likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to verify that regulations and good practices are achieving goals and to enable timely responses if problems arise. Conducting rigorous research to understand how conditions change in response to management choices requires baseline data, monitoring, and appropriate reference scenarios. Long‐term monitoring data on forest conditions should be publicly accessible and utilized to inform adaptive management.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations69
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGCB BioenergySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207