MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411461193 · doi:10.1111/cag.70018

Community‐appropriate bioenergy resource potential assessment in Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan

2025· article· en· W4411461193 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
SK Asante, Didar Islam, Tayyab Shah, Drew Dorion, Bram Noble, Greg Poelzer, Kirby Calvert, Rebecca Jahns, Omar Farag

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsQuest University CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementRenewable energyBioenergyIndigenousLocal communityEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental economicsGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bioenergy is a promising renewable energy option for energy insecure communities across the boreal region. Whilst community energy planning tools are advancing, many are driven by external technical resource assessments and fail to capture local community values. Community energy solutions must be community‐appropriate. This research combines spatial tools with participatory mapping to assess bioenergy resource potential for the northern Indigenous community of Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan. Results show that sufficient resources are available near the community to support local bioenergy production needs, whist respecting culturally significant and traditional use areas and ensuring that resources can be harvested within proximity of the community and road networks. The assessment approach demonstrates the utility of spatial and participatory tools to address the data challenges related to biomass resource assessment in remote northern contexts and to ensure community‐appropriate energy solutions. The research responds to increasing calls in energy geography scholarship for energy transition planning that is spatially relevant, grounded in technical realities, and accountable to community values, expectations, and aspirations .

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207