MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253003073 · doi:10.24124/2015/bpgub1017

University of Northern British Columbia bioenergy plant: Performance review and opportunities for improvement.

2015· dissertation· en· W4253003073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Graham Finch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioenergyFlue gasWaste managementBiocharEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasNatural gasBoiler (water heating)Heat exchangerBiomass (ecology)EngineeringEnvironmental engineeringPyrolysisBiofuelAgronomyEcologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Northern British Columbia commissioned a biomass gasifier to generate heat to offset the use of natural gas in 2011. At an average boiler output of 6.9 GJ/hr the average thermal efficiency was determined to be 80% (LHV), the flue gas average temperature was 134°C with an energy content of 589 MJ/hr. Options investigated to improve the efficiency of the bioenergy system include: Installing a flue gas condensing heat exchanger, reducing the flue gas O₂ percentage, pre-drying the fuel, installing a chiller, and installing a thermal storage tank. The most viable opportunity that exists is to add a flue gas condensing heat exchanger and connect the residences to the hot water loop. Alternative technologies were compared to the bioenergy plant in terms of greenhouse gas displacement, and the system with the greatest potential is a slow pyrolysis system producing both heat and biochar for use in soils. --Leaf ii.

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)0.002
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 score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207