MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7057243933

Increasing renewable energy in a community in Ontario with biomass : technical, economic and regulatory evaluation

2009· article· en· W7057243933 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuereposiTUm (TU Wien) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceCentaur Memorial Fund for NursesCanadian Forest ServiceQueen's University
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodHyporeflexiaDiafiltrationLiquationArticular cartilage damage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The core objective of this work is to determine whether a renewable energy option based on biomass could replace some of the current energy mix in the community of Kingston, Ontario, Canada and be economically, technically and socially feasible within the existing regulatory framework.Four different options are examined: 1) a 40 MW wood-chip CHP combustion plant generating 10 MW electric and no heat; 2) a 40 MW wood chip CHP combustion plant generating 4 MW electric and 30 MW heat; 3) a 40 MW wood-chip CHP gasification plant generating 10 MW electric and 24 MW heat; and a 2 MW biogas plant generating 2 MW electric and 2 MW heat.All four options make use of existing feedstock in and around Kingston, namely wood, crop residue and animal waste from farming.In all 4 cases the projects are economically, technically and socially feasible.To determine the degree to which Kingston can reduce its annual greenhouse gases as a result of implementing 2 of the options, statistics for Kingston's green house gases for 2006 are used, and Kingston's own target for reducing its CO 2 emissions by 16% below 2006 by 2020 are compared.below year 2000 levels by 2014.This goal was stimulated by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities program Partners for Climate Protection which Kingston City Council opted to join in 2001.Kingston has an alternative energy cluster called SWITCH which assists local residents and industries to adopt green measures offered under the government of Ontario's Standard Offer Program for Renewable Energy or the rebate program of Kingston Electricity Distribution Limited.These programs support those who wish to produce and sell renewable energy to the grid.One such project was that of a Kingston homeowner in 2007 who began to produce and sell solar power from his home.From an environmental perspective, it should be viable to switch to biomass within the current energy mix, as the availability of biomass within a 150 km radius of Kingston is abundant and accessible.This is because Kingston is situated within the Eastern Ontario Model Forest (EOMF), which encompasses 1.5 million hectares of mixed forest, urban and agricultural land in eastern Ontario, and 90 percent of the land is privately owned.It is located in the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence forest region between the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers.The forest's dominant tree species include basswood, beech, red maple, sugar maple, white ash, white spruce and yellow birch.The Eastern Ontario Model Forest certifies private woodlots, and promotes urban forestry and landowner education.The Canadian Model Forest Network (CMFN) includes Canada's 14 Model Forests and has as partners private citizens, forest companies, parks, Aboriginal communities, provincial governments and universities.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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