MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226399983 · doi:10.3390/en15072634

Dust and Particulate Matter Generated during Handling and Pelletization of Herbaceous Biomass: A Review

2022· review· en· W4226399983 on OpenAlexafffund
Singara Veloo Kanageswari, Lope G. Tabil, S. Sokhansanj

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBioFuelNet Canada
KeywordsHerbaceous plantBiomass (ecology)Environmental sciencePelletsStrawParticulatesWaste managementAgronomyEngineeringMaterials scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using straw and herbaceous crops to replace or augment fossil fuels is becoming popular as access to forest biomass becomes environmentally stricter and more expensive. The low bulk density raw biomass is pre-processed and densified into pellets to facilitate handling and use. Dust is generated during collection, baling and debaling, grinding, drying, and densifying processed herbaceous biomass. Abundant literature deals with dust generated during the industrial handling of woody biomass, grains, and other crops like cotton. But the information on handling herbaceous biomass in the open literature is scarce. This paper reviews the available literature on dust generation from handling and processing of herbaceous biomass. Limited available data shows that herbaceous biomass species have a lower ignition temperature than woody biomass. The paper identifies several crucial pieces of information needed to ensure safety in the handling and pelleting of herbaceous crops.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207