MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177207264 · doi:10.1002/bbb.2259

Technoeconomic evaluation of protein‐rich animal feed and ethanol production from palm kernel cake

2021· article· en· W3177207264 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Turner, Bradley A. Saville

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalm kernelBiorefineryBiofuelAnimal feedBiotechnologyEthanol fuelFood scienceAgricultural scienceBusinessPulp and paper industryChemistryEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPalm oilBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Indonesia and Malaysia are net importers of animal feed products to meet the demand of their domestic livestock industries. These countries are also the largest producers and exporters of palm kernel cake (PKC), an animal feed waste by‐product from the palm industry that is used primarily as a ruminant feed. Prior work demonstrated that the bioethanol process can convert the gluco‐mannan fiber in PKC into ethanol and a high‐protein animal feed. We used Microsoft Excel to develop a bioethanol process model for PKC by adapting the well developed corn ethanol process used in the USA. The PKC biorefinery model, using PKC's composition and specialized enzymes to produce fermentable glucose and mannose, projects that 1 kg of PKC can produce 0.58 kg of high‐protein animal feed and 0.20 kg of ethanol, with some residual palm kernel oil. The model estimated an increase in crude protein content from 17% in the PKC to 27% in the high‐protein animal feed. A comprehensive technoeconomic assessment using the results of the process model indicates that a PKC bioethanol factory converting 100 000 Mg year –1 of PKC would cost USD 55 million and generate a 23% project internal rate of return (IRR). © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuels Bioproducts and BiorefiningSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207