Beyond waste-to-energy: Bioenergy can drive sustainable Australian agriculture by integrating circular economy with net zero ambitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The race to meet net zero targets by 2050, while rapidly transitioning to a circular economy (CE) within the next decade, is shaping strategic Australian sustainability policy. While the success of integrating CE concepts relies on coordinating system-wide change, policies and strategies are still evolving under the traditional silos of waste and energy management. This presents multiple barriers to critical sectors, such as agriculture, which aims to become an $AUD100 billion industry by 2030. Agri-food systems face the challenge to meet growing global food demand, expected to increase by 70% by 2050, while decreasing emissions, resource use and waste production. Agriculture plays essential push and pull roles in meeting net zero targets and in developing a truly CE. Bioenergy, a critical part of the renewable circular bioeconomy, sits at the intersection of net zero and CE by producing renewable energy and recovering bioresources from waste biomass. By integrating agricultural end-users as key stakeholders, bioenergy can shift from a waste-to-energy process to a multi-resource generating process. These policy areas could be integrated via a similar approach to the Australian National Agricultural Innovation Policy Statement, with the goal of supporting agricultural production, while reducing emissions and maximising renewable resource use efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".