MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133451967

Bioenergy for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions

2005· other· en· W7133451967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernhard Schalamadinger, Annette Cowie

Bibliographic record

VenueRUNE (Research UNE) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioenergyGreenhouse gasRenewable energyBio-energy with carbon capture and storageFossil fuelCarbon sequestrationBiomass (ecology)Work (physics)Carbon capture and storage (timeline)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioenergy, based on renewable biomass, can play a significant role in mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The International Energy Agency Bioenergy Task 38 'Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems' is an international collaborative network that develops methodologies for assessing GHG balances of bioenergy systems. Countries participating in Task 38 are: Austria, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the USA. The Task has developed computer models and case studies for the assessment of GHG balances of bioenergy systems compared with fossil energy systems. A major objective is to aid decision-makers in selecting the most effective options to limit emissions or enhance removals of greenhouse gases. Exchange of models, ideas and experience is facilitated through regular workshops. Position papers and joint publications on the role of bioenergy and carbon sinks in greenhouse gas mitigation have been prepared. For example, Task 38 has produced a 'Frequently Asked Questions' paper on bioenergy, carbon sinks and global climate change. The Task also contributes to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to clarify the biomass (sinks) provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.018

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRUNE (Research UNE)French-language works237,207