MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528175316 · doi:10.1108/ijesm-01-2012-0007

Modelling EU‐GCC energy systems and trade corridors

2013· article· en· W1528175316 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Energy Sector Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy Security and Policy
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy supplyEnergy securityGreenhouse gasBusinessEuropean unionDiversification (marketing strategy)European commissionRisk managementEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEconomicsInternational tradeEnergy (signal processing)Renewable energyFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This article is based on the REACCESS research project, sponsored by the European Commission, with the objectives of evaluating the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of present and future energy corridors between the European countries (EU27) and their main energy suppliers. GCC countries have an important role to play given their role in EU energy supply and in greenhouse gas emissions. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach A single energy model was built by hard‐linking the TIMES integrated assessment model (TIAM‐World), the Pan European TIMES model (PET), and the RECOR model (REaccess CORridors), including more than 1,000 possible energy corridors supplying the European countries. Another major methodology advance was to create a hybrid objective function, combining the usual cost objective and a metric representing the supply risk incurred by EU27. The risk component was constructed via a novel approach that aggregates the elemental risk parameters of each corridor using a Min‐Max function. Four contrasted scenarios were assessed, based on security and climate objectives. Findings Among the many results, it appears that a large reduction of the supply risk may be achieved at a very modest increase of the total energy system cost for EU27. Cross‐effects of climate mitigation and security objectives are also observed. Due to the diversification requirement, the contribution of GCC countries to EU energy imports increases under risk scenario. Sensitivity analyses show that the European energy system seems unable to reduce the market shares of fossil fuels import from MENA countries, including GCC countries, much below the reference case, proving the strong dependency of EU27 energy system from these countries. However, total fossil fuels imports, as well as total energy consumed, are decreased under the risk adverse scenarios. Originality/value Methodological developments, as described above, result in an advanced tool to assess how to increase the “energy system security”, by reducing the concentration of supply countries, diversifying import sources but also reducing the energy dependence at the end‐use side.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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