MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981845831

Feasibility analysis of wood-biomass energy generation for the off-grid community of Brochet in North-west Manitoba, Canada.

2014· dissertation· en· W6981845831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Structural Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Electricity generationResource (disambiguation)Power stationRenewable energyInvestment (military)Fossil fuelReliability (semiconductor)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feasibility of wood based energy plants in the off-grid Brochet community in Manitoba were analyzed by survey, interviews and document review in this research. Four areas were explored to assess the suitability of biomass energy generation, namely: the community’s perspective, resource assessment, technology availability, and cost attractiveness. Harvesting sufficient woody biomass from local wild fire burnt areas, in particular, as well as local green forests could be an appropriate and feasible option. A heat only plant is considered to be the best choice for biomass plant establishment in Brochet, followed by combined heat and power plants. A cost analysis showed that a biomass plant at Brochet is more economical than the current planned investment in the diesel power facility. The lack of resolve about who wants to run and pay for the operation and the uncertainty of the reliability of biomass technologies are two large barriers to biomass energy generation in the community. Overall, biomass energy generation options are promising to eliminate or reduce the use of fossil fuel in Brochet.

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)0.002
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicCivil and Structural Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207