MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888851284 · doi:10.1002/bbb.1499

Systematic assessment of triticale‐based biorefinery strategies: techno‐economic analysis to identify investment opportunities

2018· article· en· W2888851284 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiorefineryTriticaleMultiple-criteria decision analysisProfitability indexSustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental economicsReturn on investmentGross marginInvestment (military)BiotechnologyAgricultural engineeringProduction (economics)BiofuelEngineeringEconomicsOperations researchAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years, interest has increased in biorefineries that use a variety of biomass residues and non‐food crops. Triticale ( X Triticosecale Wittmack ) is a human‐developed crop that has the potential to become a preferred industrial energy crop for the biorefinery because of its capacity to grow on marginal land, its higher yields compared to existing cereal crops such as wheat, and its non‐competition with food‐based crops. However, implementation of the triticale‐based biorefinery will require the identification of sustainable strategies and as its sustainability pillar, the identification of economically promising strategies. In this study, the economic performance of several triticale‐based product‐process scenarios, including the production of ethanol, polylactic acid (PLA), and thermoplastic starch polymer, has been assessed through the evaluation of six economic criteria. These conflicting criteria have been evaluated in a multi‐criteria decision‐making (MCDM) panel, demonstrated for PLA platform, which has made it possible (i) to rank the alternatives by their economic performance, and (ii) to identify a set of the most important criteria to be used in a sustainability study. The MCDM results show that the alternatives with the best performance on profitability‐oriented criteria do not necessarily achieve the highest overall economic score. This suggests the need to consider both business‐strategy‐oriented criteria and profitability‐oriented criteria in strategic decision‐making. The MCDM results show that the internal rate of return, the downside internal rate of return, and the resistance to supply market uncertainty with relative weights of 24.8%, 23.6%, and 18.1% respectively, are the most important of the criteria assessed. © 2018 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.262 · 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