MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965731427 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n14p12

Yield From Forest Harvesting Operations for the Production of Charcoal in the State of Minas Gerais

2019· article· en· W2965731427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guilherme Carvalho Lana, Romano Timofeiczyk, Dimas Agostinho da Silva, David Alexandre Buratto, Gustavo Silva de Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Food Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharcoalCarbonizationYield (engineering)Pulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceProduction (economics)Wood processingAgricultural engineeringForestryMaterials scienceEngineeringGeographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The charcoal is a renewable natural resource, produced from wood by the process of carbonization and with great energetic importance. However, there is still little research and use of new technologies to optimize the use of wood in the production of charcoal. Therefore, the present work was aimed at analyzing the yield from forest harvesting operations for the production of charcoal. The research was developed at Vallourec e Mannesmann Florestal, a company located at Itapoã farm, municipality of Paraopeba, Minas Gerais. To this end, the harvest and timber transport operations in the short log system, the carbonization, and the properties of the charcoal produced were assessed. To this end, data was collected from eighteen 9-hour shifts for the Harvester, fifty-four 9-hour shifts for the forwarder, and 36 carbonization cycles. The equipment was analyzed working with three different log lengths—2.1 m, 3.7 m, and 5.0 m. The results demonstrate, during the cutting and processing, that the yield by cutting longer logs is higher. Likewise, at forwarding, the operation’s yield increases according to log length for thick and thin logs. Finally, concerning carbonization, the yield at the furnace loading stage was higher as the length of the log used increased, however, upon unloading the furnace, it was when it decreased.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural and Food SciencesFrench-language works237,207