MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889425258 · doi:10.1002/bbb.1482

Systematic assessment of triticale‐based biorefinery strategies: sustainability assessment using multi‐criteria decision‐making (MCDM)

2018· article· en· W2889425258 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shabnam Sanaei, Virginie Chambost, Paul Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiorefineryMultiple-criteria decision analysisSustainabilityEnvironmental economicsInvestment (military)BusinessEngineeringBiofuelEconomicsWaste managementOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Triticale – a hybrid of rye and wheat – is a man‐made crop that has the potential to be a preferred feedstock for the biorefinery in Canada because of its ability to grow on marginal land, its high yields, and its non‐competition with food‐based crops. However, it is challenging to identify sustainable investment options among the many possible triticale‐based biorefinery pathways. Several product‐process combinations for the production of polylactic acid (PLA) were defined in this study, each involving different degrees of technology and market risk. The different biorefinery configurations had conflicting rankings considering different criteria, making a trade‐off analysis essential to assess the most sustainable biorefinery strategies. Economic, competitive, and environmental dimensions of the biorefinery alternatives were thus evaluated in a multi‐criteria decision‐making (MCDM) panel, so that the triticale‐based biorefinery strategies could be ranked using a sustainability perspective. In this study, a set of ten criteria determined as the most important through previously‐conducted MCDMs were presented to a decision‐making panel. They determined that for PLA production, maximizing electricity production through a straw‐dedicated CHP unit was the least sustainable investment option, due to poor economic and competitiveness performance associated with its capital‐intensiveness and its failure to include a value‐added product portfolio. Therefore, this investment option was screened out from the list of strategies to be further analyzed. On the other hand, options featuring higher technology risk including energy‐efficient separation processes (ultra‐filtration) and integrated fermentation processes (SSCF) attained significantly better sustainability scores due mainly to their low energy and raw materials consumption values. © 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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuels Bioproducts and BiorefiningSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207