Constructing the Embodied Carbon Flows and Emissions Landscape from the Perspective of Supply Chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the perspective of supply chain, benchmarking the embodied carbon flows and emissions landscape is to study the carbon footprint in supply chain production and process management. On the basis of the theory of a green supply chain, this paper conducted its research through the following steps. First, a multi-level supply chain model was proposed and established, and various sectors, production and management processes, and inputs and outputs of different resources were integrated into the supply chain network, and then divided into multiple levels. Second, a multi-level embodied carbon flow and emissions model was established through the Leontief Inverse. Third, based on the operation data of forestry-pulp and paper companies, the embodied carbon flows and emissions at all levels and sectors were estimated and analyzed. Finally, the dismantling and processing methods of complex carbon network structures were explored, the hot-spot carbon sources and paths were obtained, and the low-carbon innovation and development strategies were proposed. The research results show that: (1) Supply chain is a new idea and carrier to study the spatial and state changes of carbon, and also provides a platform for spatial landscape analysis of carbon; (2) The modeling and calculation of carbon flows and emissions offer a new solution of evaluating the environmental performance of companies with high pollution and emission such as forestry-pulp and paper companies, and provide the government effective technical support to implement environmental regulations and formulate carbon emission reduction policies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".