MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244999113 · doi:10.33915/etd.6325

Salix spp. as a biomass crop: Investigating their potential on marginal lands and the use of biochar as a soil amendment

2015· dissertation· en· W4244999113 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heather A. Nobert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsBiocharAmendmentLand reclamationBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceWillowCharcoalSoil waterAgronomyBioenergyEnergy cropCoalRaw materialAgroforestryBiofuelWaste managementPyrolysisGeographyChemistryEngineeringBotanySoil scienceEcologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy consumption has drastically increased over the past 150 years and the pressure put on the environment to provide these resources has increased as a consequence. At least 2.5 million hectares of land in the United States has been disturbed as a result of surface mining for coal. Biomass crops have been explored as an alternative energy source. In West Virginia little land is available for those crops; however as a result of coal extraction, at least 50,000 acres of previously strip or surface mined area has been deemed suitable for reclamation with biomass crops. Due to the challenges associated with the reclamation of mine sites, biochar was investigated for its potential as a soil amendment. Field trials of shrub willow (Salix spp.) were established at four sites in West Virginia to assess their potential production in these highly disturbed sites. To characterize their potential as a feedstock for fuels, thermogravimetric analysis, analysis of elemental concentrations, and heating value were measured. Wood properties for 1 year old material were generally within the specifications for woody biomass. Ash content was slightly higher (2.7% vs. 1%) as was nitrogen (0.98% vs. 0.35%). Volatile matter was lower than general a guideline (79.8% vs. 82%) which is beneficial for heating values and greenhouse gas emissions. It was also observed that biochar was an effective soil amendment. Test plots that received applications of biochar had higher growth, yield, and survivorship than reference plots at the end of the first year.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.244
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and management→French-language works237,207→