MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189905720 · doi:10.3390/f12081056

Relation between Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions in Drying Units Using Forest Biomass

2021· article· en· W3189905720 on OpenAlexaff
Débora Luana Pasa, Luana Dessbesell, Jorge Antônio de Farias, D. Hermes

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Food Sciences
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirewoodGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Context (archaeology)PelletsNOxEnvironmental engineeringPulp and paper industryWaste managementAgronomyCombustionEngineeringChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impacts of climate change are inevitable and driven by increased levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, requiring mitigation and re-adaptation measures. In this context, this article critically analyzes the influence of drying technology type, forest biomass, and GHG emissions resulting from the energy required for drying agricultural crops, by presenting a case study of tobacco drying. In this study, the influence of increasing the technological level of drying unit (curing units CUs), using E. saligna and E. dunnii firewood and Pinus sp. pellets, was evaluated; considering consumption efficiency, energy efficiency, and concentration of gas emissions (CO, CO2, CXHY and NOX), as well as emission factors in tCO₂-eq. The results showed that when increasing the technological level of the CUs, there is a decrease in fuel consumption and emissions. The reduction can reach 60.28% for the amount of biomass consumed and 67.06% in emissions in tCO₂-eq; for the scenario of a production crop, using a CU with a continuous load (Chongololo) and firewood from E. dunnii. The use of pellets proved to be efficient, with the lowest consumption of biomass and emissions with more technological CUs.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicAgricultural and Food SciencesFrench-language works237,207