MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416769881 · doi:10.1111/gcbb.70095

Trends and Advancements in Utilization of Biomass Waste for Gasification: A Bibliometric Review

2025· review· en· W4416769881 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGCB Bioenergy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversiti Teknologi Petronas
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)ScopusThematic mapBibliometricsWeb of scienceThematic analysisCitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Biomass waste gasification is widely recognized as a sustainable and efficient method for converting organic waste into valuable energy, making it a focal point in global research. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis of publications related to this field, focusing on articles indexed in the Elsevier Scopus database from 1977 to 2023 using search terms “biomass waste,” “biomass residue,” “waste biomass,” and “gasification”. Initially, 981 articles were identified, with subsequent refined analyses narrowing the focus to 592 publications, using VOSviewer for in‐depth examination. The analysis revealed that the year 2023 saw the highest publication count with 73 articles, followed by the year 2022 and the year 2020, with 61 and 54 articles, respectively. China, the USA, and India emerged as the leading contributors, accounting for 9.68%, 7.07%, and 6.75% of the total publications, respectively. Top institutions by citations are the University of Saskatchewan (259), Hamad Bin Khalifa University (169), and Paul Scherrer Institut (113). The most prolific researchers in the field include Gulyurtlu, I., Cabrita, I., and Dalai, Ajay K., with citation counts of 1296, 1290, and 1020, respectively. The journals Energy , Fuel , and Energies were identified as authors' most preferred publishing choice with 26, 23, and 22 publications, respectively. The keywords “Gasification,” “Biomass,” and “Syngas” were the most frequently occurring, with 194, 147, and 52 occurrences. Keyword analysis also revealed five thematic clusters. These findings offer a detailed overview of the research landscape in biomass waste gasification, emphasizing key contributors, emerging trends, and thematic areas, providing valuable insights for guiding future research in this domain.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0150.041
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.281 · 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