MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969833048 · doi:10.3390/f10090725

Energy Flows and Carbon Footprint in the Forestry-Pulp and Paper Industry

2019· article· en· W2969833048 on OpenAlexaff
Qingjian Zhao, Sheng Ding, Zuomin Wen, Anne Toppinen

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAcademy of FinlandNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasCarbon footprintFossil fuelCoalWaste managementRenewable energyEnergy conservationEnergy consumptionEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of global climate change, energy conservation and greenhouse effect gases (GHG) reduction are major challenges to mankind. The forestry-pulp and paper industry is a typical high energy consumption and high emission industry. We conducted in-depth research on the energy flows and carbon footprint of the forestry-pulp paper industry. The results show that: (1) The main sources of energy supply include external fossil fuel coal and internal biomass fuel black liquor, which supply 30,057,300 GJ and 14,854,000 GJ respectively; in addition, the energy produced by diesel in material transportation reaches 11,624,256 GJ. (2) The main energy consumption processes include auxiliary engineering projects, material transportation, papermaking, alkali recovery, pulping and other production workshops. The percentages of energy consumption account for 26%, 18%, 15%, 10% and 6%, respectively. (3) The main sources of carbon include coal and forest biomass, reaching 770,000 tons and 1.39 million tons, respectively. (4) Carbon emissions mainly occur in fuel combustion in combined heating and power (CHP) and diesel combustion in material transportation, reaching 6.78 million tons and 790,000 tons of carbon, respectively. (5) Based on steam and electricity consumption, the indirect carbon emissions of various thermal and electric energy production units were calculated, and the key energy consumption process units and hotspot carbon flow paths were further found. This research established a theoretical and methodological basis for energy conservation and emission reduction.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207