A review of North American biofel production, policies and research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is the result of a collaborative project within the Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3). Information for the report was collected through literature reviews and interviews with leading researchers in Canada and the US during a research trip to attend the Advanced Biofuels Symposium in Montreal. </BR> </BR> The production of biofuels has increased dramatically in North America in recent years. The United States (U.S.) is leading this development and has promoted biofuels through a number of policies and mandates through the Renewable Fuels Standard to drive production, research and innovation in the area. Canada has also intensified the promotion of biofuels in recent years through the Renewable Fuels Regulation, in addition to a number of provincial policies and mandates to promote biofuels. Ethanol is currently the dominant fuel in both countries, with blend rates in petrol between 5-10 percent, but with even higher blends in some areas in development, depending upon the region. The promotion and policies for ethanol fuels help to drastically increase their production and use in the past 10 years. The U.S. is currently the largest producer of ethanol in the world, with nearly 55 billion liters of ethanol produced in 2014. Canada has also seen a large increase in biofuel production during the last 10 years, with production increasing by a factor of 10. Currently Canada produces roughly 1.7 billion liters of ethanol per year. Other biofuels, such as biodiesel, have only marginal volumes in comparison, although roughly 300 million liters of biodiesel were produced in 2014 in Canada and 6 billion liters in the U.S.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".