MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083181046 · doi:10.3390/en13184609

Degraded Trees from Spruce Budworm Epidemics as Bioenergy Feedstock: A Profitability Analysis of Forest Operations

2020· article· en· W3083181046 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mathieu Béland, Évelyne Thiffault, Julie Barrette, Warren Mabee

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité Laval
FundersBioFuelNet Canada
KeywordsBioenergyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceForestryWood productionRaw materialBiomass (ecology)TaigaPulp and paper industryProcurementRenewable energyForest managementAgronomyBusinessGeographyEcologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural disturbances are common in Canadian boreal managed forests. For example, during and after insect epidemics, foresters must deal with significant amounts of degraded or dead wood that cannot be processed into sawn timber or pulp. Bioenergy could be an alternative pathway for this wood. A case study in Quebec (Canada) was used to evaluate the profitability of pellet production for bioenergy using degraded trees from insect epidemics. A bioenergy scenario was simulated in which degraded trees were harvested for bioenergy alongside sound wood for timber and pulp. This scenario was compared to a reference scenario in which degraded trees were left on cutovers. Using wood pellets as a case study, the results showed that at current market prices, harvesting degraded trees for pellet production is not as profitable as leaving them in the forest. Nevertheless, the overall forest operations for procuring wood for timber and pulp were still profitable, even with very high degradation levels. Procuring degraded trees reduced the overall fixed costs per harvested m3 and allowed average savings of C$2.83/harvested m3. The silvicultural savings associated with lower site preparation needs following procurement of degraded trees ranged from C$0/ha to C$500/ha, resulting in average savings of C$2.31/harvested m3. Depending on the stand conditions, the distribution of fixed costs and silvicultural savings of biomass procurement could be either low or significant.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207