Tracking the Biogenic Component of Lower-Carbon Intensive, Co-Processed Fuels—An Overview of Existing Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several methods are currently used to track the bio-component of co-processed fuels including energy/mass balance, yield methods and radiocarbon techniques. The methods used to track or estimate the bio-component of fuels produced when bio and fossil feedstocks are processed together (co-processed) in oil refineries were analysed in detail, together with their advantages and disadvantages. Some methods, such as radiocarbon methods that allow the direct measurement of the bio-content in a fuel, have been criticised due to low accuracy at low blends. However, these reservations have tended to misinterpret the options available for carbon dating and to discount recent improvements in these tests. As much higher co-pressing mixtures are anticipated if published national decarbonisation targets are to be achieved, any challenges at very low co-processing ratios affecting the accuracy of the radiocarbon methods should not be an issue. Energy/mass balance and yield methods might be supplemented with carbon-tracking to determine the real the biogenic content.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".