A Two-Stage DSS to Evaluate Optimal Locations for Bioenergy Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Highlights: A set of 128 potential bioenergy facility locations is established and evaluated based on the transport cost to select optimal locations. Background and Objectives: The identification of optimal facility locations to process recovered forest biomass is an important decision in designing a bioenergy supply chain at the strategic planning level. The result of this analysis can affect supply chain costs and the overall efficiency of the network, due to the low density and dispersed nature of forest biomass and the high costs associated with its logistics operations. In this study, we develop a two-stage decision support system to identify the optimal site locations for forest biomass conversion based on biomass availability, transport distance and cost. Materials and Methods: In the first stage, a GIS-based analysis is designed to identify strategic locations of potential bioenergy sites. The second stage evaluates the most cost-effective locations individually using a transportation cost model, based on the results from stage one. The sensitivity of inputs, such as maximum allowable transport cost, the distance of transport and their relations to the profit balance, and changes in fuel price are tested. The method is applied to a real case study in the state of Queensland, Australia. Results and Conclusions: The GIS analysis resulted in 128 strategic candidate locations being suggested for bioenergy conversion sites. The logistics analysis estimated the optimal cost and transportation distance of each one of the locations and ranked them according to the overall performance between capacities of 5 and 100 MW.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".