Classifying Hybrids of Energy Cane for Production of Bioethanol and Cogeneration of Biomass-Based Electricity by Principal Component Analysis-Linked Fuzzy C-Means Clustering Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biggest challenge facing in sugar-energy plants is to move towards the biorefinery concept, without threatening the environment and health. Energy cane is the state-of-the-art of smart energy crops to provide suitable whole-raw material to produce upgraded biofuels, dehydrated alcohol for transportation, refined sugar, yeast-fermented alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, silage and high-quality fodder, as well as to cogenerate heat and bioelectricity from burnt lignocellulose. We, accordingly, present fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering algorithm interconnected with principal component analysis (PCA) as powerful exploratory data analysis tool to wisely classify hybrids of energy cane for production of first-generation ethanol and cogeneration of heat and bioelectricity. From the orthogonally-rotated factorial map, fuzzy cluster I aggregated the hybrids VX12-0277, VX12-1191, VX12-1356 and VX12-1658 composed of higher contents of soluble solids and sucrose, and larger productive yields of fermentable sugars. These parameters correlated with the X-axis component referring to technological quality of cane juice. Fuzzy cluster III aggregated the hybrids VX12-0180 and VX12-1022 consisted of higher fiber content. This parameter correlated with the Y-axis component referring to physicochemical quality of lignocellulose. From the PCA-FCM methodology, the conclusion is, therefore, hybrids from fuzzy cluster I prove to be type I energy cane (higher sucrose to fiber ratio) and could serve as energy supply pathways to produce bioethanol, while the hybrids from fuzzy cluster III are type II energy cane (lower sucrose to fiber ratio), denoting potential as higher fiber yield biomass sources to feed cogeneration of heat and bioelectricity in high temperature and pressure furnace-boiler system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".