Opportunities and barriers for biofuel and bioenergy production from poplar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to the growing demand for transportation fuels and concerns about the greenhouse gas emissions derived from the use of fossil fuels, the development of alternative fuels from renewable resources, such as lignocellulosic biomass, is of paramount importance. This is compounded by the fact that there are increasing pressures and limitation on available arable land for renewable biomass production, and therefore, how to obtain more biomass resources and how to make full use of these biomass resources are key issues. Poplar (Populus spp.) is one of the fastest‐growing temperate trees in the world and is a very promising raw material for the production of biofuels and other bio‐based commodities. As the first tree species to have its genome sequenced, and significant continuing efforts towards resequencing of different species/varieties, poplar resources will undoubtedly pave the way for the targeted cultivation of new poplar varieties suitable for biofuel production. In this article, we summarized that the main problems faced by using poplar as a biomass resource for biofuel production are the inherent recalcitrance of lignocellulosic biomass, and highlighted the response status on improving the biomass yield and efforts towards developing efficient poplar varieties for biofuel production.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".