Erratum: A review of biomass densification systems to develop uniform feedstock commodities for bioenergy application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After online publication of this article on October 6, 2011, the authors have noticed the following reference errors within the paper, which is in this current issue (Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 5:683–707): Page 684: Reference 5 should be replaced with Reference 77, Tumuluru JS, Sokhansanj S, Lim CJ, Bi X, Anthony L, Staffan M, Sowlati T and Ehsan O, Quality of wood pellets produced in British Columbia. App Eng Agr 26:1013–1020 (2010b). Table 1: Reference 145 should be replaced with Reference 149, Shimida Systems [Online]. Available at: http://www.shimada.co.uk/index.php [July 20, 2011]. Table 4: Reference 10 should be Mani S, A system analysis of biomass densification process: PhD thesis submitted to Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (2005). Page 692: Reference 64 refers to Shaw's MS thesis rather than PhD thesis. Page 693: Reference 77 should be replaced with Reference 135, Tumuluru JS, Tabil LG, Opoku A, Mosqueda MR and Fadeyi O, Effect of process variables on the quality characteristics of pelleted wheat distiller's dried grains with soluble (DDGS). Bio Eng 105:466–475 (2010d). Table 6: Reference 27 should be Adapa PK, Tabil LG and Schoenau G, Compression characteristics of non-treated and steam exploded barley, canola, oat, and wheat straw grinds. App Eng Agr 26:617–632 (2010). Page 699: Reference 77 should be replaced with Reference 133, Tumuluru JS, Kuang X, Sokhansanj S, Lim CJ, Bi X and Staffan M, Development of laboratory studies on the off-gassing of wood pellets. Can Bio Eng 52:8.1–8.9 (2010c). Page 699: Reference 133 should be replaced with Reference 5, Tumuluru JS, Wright CT, Kenney KL and Hess JR, A review on biomass densification technologies for energy applications. [Online]. Tech. Report INL/EXT-10-18420, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, USA (2010). Available at: http://www.inl.gov/bioenergy [June 22, 2011].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".