MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391404327 · doi:10.3390/c10010015

Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Risks from Supply Chain Perspective: A Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework Development

2024· review· en· W4391404327 on OpenAlexafffund
Md Ainul Kabir, Sharfuddin Ahmed Khan, Golam Kabir

Bibliographic record

VenueC – Journal of Carbon Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Supply chainConceptual frameworkRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessComputer scienceSociologySocial scienceArtificial intelligenceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The technology called carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is important for capturing CO2 emissions before they enter the air. Because everyone wants to stop global warming by reducing CO2 emissions, CCUS is an important and emerging technology that can help slow down climate change, lower emissions in many areas, and support the move toward a sustainable and carbon-neutral future. As CCUS technology and its adaptation increases, it is very important to pay attention to the CCUS risks from a supply chain (SC) point of view. The goal of this study was to identify CCUS supply chain risks and develop a conceptual framework (CF) that provides a structured approach to ensure safe and reliable CCUS supply chain operations. Therefore, this study analyzed the literature related to the SCs of different sectors and identified the SC risks, which was the foundation for CCUS SC risk identification. This study demonstrates that there is no research article that provides a comprehensive CCUS SC risk management framework that connects with risk management strategies. The conceptual framework that is proposed in this study connects CCUS SC functions, risks, and risk management strategies to construct a complete CCUS supply chain risk management system. Moreover, the CF provides guidelines for future research, which will enrich the CCUS supply chain risk management system as well as fight climate change.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueC – Journal of Carbon ResearchSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207