MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173958831 · doi:10.4236/jsbs.2021.112007

Identification of Techno-Economically Viable Crop Residue Utilization in India

2021· article· en· W3173958831 on OpenAlexaff
S. Sokhansanj, Anthony Lau, Mahmood Ebadian, Kanishk Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Human Resource DevelopmentScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsCrop residueBiofuelBioenergyBiogasAgricultureRaw materialEnvironmental scienceAgricultural engineeringBiomass (ecology)FertilizerBiotechnologyWaste managementBusinessAgroforestryAgronomyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India generates more than 140 million tonnes of surplus crop residue every year In Haryana, the agricultural sector alone produces 24.64 million tonnes of residue annually; of which only 71% is consumed in various domestic and commercial activities within the state. The rest of the material is burned causing severe contamination of air with smoke. There is an urgent need to identify suitable and sustainable conversion technologies that are efficient, eco-friendly as well as cost-effective for managing the huge available biomass not only in the state but also in the country. This paper reviews briefly the available crop residue and quantities burned, proposes a scheme to incorporate part of the residue in the field for its fertilizer value. The remaining biomass is harvested for animal feed and the excess is converted to bioenergy and biofuels. Among the developed and developing biofuels, the paper identifies biogas production from biomass for on-farm use. Pelletization is identified as an enabling technology to provide high quality feedstock for conversion to heat/power and in near future to advanced biofuels.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Bioenergy SystemsSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207