MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159089916 · doi:10.3390/en14092603

De-Risking Wood-Based Bioenergy Development in Remote and Indigenous Communities in Canada

2021· article· en· W3159089916 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer Buss, Nicolas Mansuy, Sebnem Madrali

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersIndigenous Services Canada
KeywordsBioenergyBusinessNatural resource economicsBiomass (ecology)Supply chainGreenhouse gasEnvironmental resource managementIndigenousContext (archaeology)Environmental planningEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionRenewable energyGeographyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote and Indigenous communities in Canada have a unique opportunity to mobilize the vast amount of wood-based biomass to meet their energy needs, while supporting a local economy, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study realized in collaboration with five remote and Indigenous communities across Canada investigates the main barriers and potential solutions to developing stable and sustainable wood-based bioenergy systems. Our results highlight that despite the differences in available biomass and geographical context, these communities face common policy, economic, operational, cultural, social, and environmental risks and barriers to developing bioenergy. The communities identified and ranked the biggest barriers as follows; the high initial investment of bioenergy projects, the logistical and operational challenges of developing a sustainable wood supply chain in remote locations, and the limited opportunities for community leadership of bioenergy projects. Environmental risks have been ranked as the least important by all the communities, except for the communities in Manitoba, which ranked it as the second most important risk. However, all the communities agreed that climate change is the main environmental driver disturbing the wood-based bioenergy supply chain. To de-risk the wood-based bioenergy system, we suggest that stable and sustainable supply chains can be implemented by restoring community-based resources management supported by local knowledge and workforce. Using local knowledge can also help reduce the impacts caused by biomass harvesting on the ecosystem and avoid competition with traditional land uses. Including positive externalities to cost benefit analysis, when comparing bioenergy systems to existing energy installation, will likely make bioenergy projects more attractive for the community financially. Alternatively, supporting co-learning between partners and among communities can improve knowledge and innovation sharing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207