MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133078270

Evaluation of infrastructure requirements for a lignocellulosic ethanol fuelled light-duty fleet in Ontario

2004· dissertation· W7133078270 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Natalia Samokhina

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian College of OsteopathyBibliographical Society of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Food and Agriculture
KeywordsEthanol fuelLignocellulosic biomassBiofuelBiomass (ecology)AgricultureProduction (economics)Yield (engineering)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prospects for lignocellulosic ethanol industry from grasses and agricultural residues in Ontario were evaluated. The amount of land that could potentially be used for growing grasses was estimated, under various assumptions. The amount of agricultural residues that might be collected in the province was estimated. The maximum total amount of lignocellulosic ethanol that can be produced domestically in Ontario under the most optimistic long-term future scenario was found to be 2.61 Billion litres, which is about 20% of the demand for E85 ethanol blend in the province. The areas with the highest potential yield of biomass were identified and possible locations of ethanol conversion plants were proposed. A linear optimization model for the calculation of the total transportation cost of ethanol from the plants to the demand centers was developed, and the total cost of lignocellulosic ethanol production was estimated to range from $0.51 to $0.55 per litre.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207