Biomass energy in central British Columbia: framing the issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Bioenergy, or energy derived from biomass, was the predominant energy source for humans from prehistory to the mid-19th century. With on-going energy security issues, rising greenhouse-gas (GHG) levels driven by fossil fuel energy consumption and volatile natural resource prices, the biomass energy of yesterday is now being re-evaluated as the energy source for tomorrow. The technology of bioenergy production has evolved considerably in recent years, such that heat, electricity and liquid fuels for transportation can all be derived from a wide variety of biomass starting materials. Though the transformation of sunlight energy into chemical biomass energy in plants is in theory an endlessly renewable process, the way in which we manage our lands to generate this biomass energy can be degradative and unsustainable when all of the land-use values are taken into account. This paper evaluates bioenergy through the prism of sustainability, highlighting issues relating to the physical and temporal scales of the resource and impacts of its use, technological opportunities and limitations, net environmental impacts, and community concerns and needs. The geographic focus is the central interior of British Columbia, however, the issues raised in this paper will be relevant to all locations considering bioenergy."
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".