MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114794462 · doi:10.35229/jaes.837006

A Study On The Biomass Energy Potential Of Turkey: Example Of Wood Pellets

2020· article· en· W3114794462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Devlet Toksoy, Semra Çolak, Mahmut Bayramoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKaradeniz Teknik Üniversitesi
KeywordsPelletsRenewable energyPelletBiomass (ecology)SawdustRenewable fuelsWood fuelEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelAgricultural economicsBioenergyWaste managementPulp and paper industryEngineeringEconomicsMaterials scienceAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood Pellet, one of the biomass fuels in renewable energy sources, stands out among all renewable energy sources with it’s ease of production technology, environmental friendliness and similar features. Wood pellets, which are fuel pellets of 6-10 mm diameter, which are obtained from the drying of wood waste, milling it into sawdust and then compressing it with high pressure, have become economically comparable with fossil fuels today. Wood pellet trade worldwide increased by more than 21% in 2018 compared to the previous year, reaching a trade volume of 22.3 million tons. The biggest pellet exporter countries in the world since 2012 are USA, Canada, Vietnam, Latvia and Russia respectively. These countries accounted for approximately 69% of the world export volume in 2018. Except for five countries, they continue to work on alternative energy sources and especially the production, technology, use and properties of wood pellets in China. In Turkey, there are studies on the production of wood pellets and the economy. However, these studies need to be updated both in terms of production and economics. In the study, analyzed the current data with the potential that Turkey has developed proposals for the use of this potential.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal SciencesSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207