Integrating bio-hubs in biomass supply chains: Insights from a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomass sources are geographically scattered, and seasonal changes influence their availability. Variations in location, type, and feedstock quality impose logistical and storage challenges. Such a dispersion and variety of biomass sources, as well as the dispersion of demand points, may undermine the economies of scale and increase the risk of supply shortage. By consolidating biomass preprocessing and distribution activities in bio-hub facilities, they can contribute to the overall resilience of biomass supply chains (BSCs) and ensure a more sustainable and cost-efficient approach to bioenergy production. As such, investigating the advantages and challenges associated with bio-hub implementation can offer invaluable insights on the efficiency and sustainability of BSCs. Despite its critical role, a major part of the literature on BSCs is confined to the decision-making processes related to biomass suppliers and bioconversion facilities. To bridge this research gap, the current study conducts a systematic literature review on bio-hub implementation within BSCs in the period of the last ten years. Shortlisted papers are classified and analyzed meticulously to extract possible improvements from BSC and modeling perspectives. From the BSC viewpoint, one notable gap is the little attention to mid-term and short-term decisions of bio-hub operations such as inventory control, resource management and production planning. Furthermore, the results revealed that environmental and social aspects of bio-hub implementation require considerable attention. From the modeling perspective, findings illustrate the underutilization of integrated approaches to incorporate micro-level and macro-level information in decision-making. In this regard, a number of areas are suggested for further exploration.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".