MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412438485 · doi:10.1016/j.clscn.2025.100252

Predicting biomass transportation costs: A machine learning approach for enhanced biofuel competitiveness

2025· article· en· W4412438485 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Omidkar, Razieh Es’haghian, Hua Song

Bibliographic record

VenueCleaner Logistics and Supply Chain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsBiofuelBiomass (ecology)BusinessEngineeringWaste managementEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The escalating depletion of hydrocarbon reserves and the escalating global climate crisis have catalyzed a significant shift towards biofuels as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. However, the substantial cost disparity between biofuels and conventional fossil fuels presents a formidable obstacle to their widespread adoption. A pivotal component within the biofuel supply chain is the substantial financial burden associated with transporting biomass feedstocks to biorefineries for subsequent fuel production. For many low-cost or residue-based biomass feedstocks, the transportation cost represents a substantial portion of the total delivered price, often dominating the overall feedstock cost—especially when sourced from widely distributed or small-scale suppliers. Despite extensive scholarly inquiry, a comprehensive and accurate predictive model for biomass road transport costs remains elusive. This study endeavors to address this critical knowledge gap by conducting an in-depth analysis of global biomass road transport data to meticulously identify the key parameters that exert a significant influence on transportation costs. Through rigorous correlation analysis, fifteen independent variables were identified as having a discernible impact on the final transportation cost. Departing from the prevalent reliance on regression analysis in previous studies, this research demonstrates the limitations of multiple linear regression for accurately predicting transportation costs. Consequently, this study explores the predictive capabilities of two alternative machine learning algorithms: random forests and artificial neural networks. Comparative analysis unequivocally demonstrates the superior predictive performance of the random forest model, achieving a remarkable R-squared value of 97.4 % and a root mean square error of 165. Furthermore, this study delves into the relative importance of each independent variable in determining the overall transportation cost. In the multiple linear regression model, load factor and vehicle type emerged as the most influential factors, contributing 37 % and 31 % to the total cost variation, respectively. Conversely, the impact of distance on transportation costs was found to be minimal. In the more robust random forest model, vehicle type, distance, and load factor were identified as the most significant predictors, contributing 31 %, 25 %, and 12 % to the overall cost variation, respectively. The predictive model developed in this study offers valuable insights into the cost dynamics of biomass transportation. By facilitating precise predictions of transportation costs, stakeholders are empowered to streamline logistical operations, augment operational efficiency, and consequently, curtail overall biofuel production expenses. The resultant enhancement in the price competitiveness of biofuels relative to fossil fuels is poised to stimulate broader utilization of these renewable resources. Furthermore, the transportation sector, a primary consumer of fuel, stands to gain substantially, as the adoption of cost-effective, cleaner-burning fuels fosters a transition towards more sustainable logistics practices.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCleaner Logistics and Supply ChainSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207