MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1580660030 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511754104.005

The usual suspects: efficiency, nuclear and renewables

2001· book-chapter· en· W1580660030 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Jaccard

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyCommercializationNuclear powerFossil fuelRenewable energyInvestment (military)EconomicsNatural resource economicsCoalEconomic policyFellNatural gasBusinessMarket economyEngineeringWaste managementPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he oil crisis and fossil fuel price shocks in the 1970s boosted the prospects for energy efficiency, nuclear power and renewable forms of energy. Each of these alternatives experienced a surge of investment in R&D, demonstration projects and commercialization efforts. Each became the focus of government policy initiatives and public utility programs, sometimes attracting large subsidies. As the 1980s progressed, however, the prices of oil, natural gas and coal fell back to their historic levels. Unable to compete with fossil fuels except in special circumstances, each alternative experienced stagnating investment and declining policy interest. The emerging concern for sustainable energy in the 1990s, especially the focus on climate change among wealthier countries, produced a new window of opportunity for efficiency, nuclear and renewables, as advocates extolled their environmental virtues. Dramatic improvements in energy efficiency might eliminate the need for primary energy expansion, and even enable its contraction. Nuclear power produces clean electricity while emitting no local air pollutants, no regional acid emissions and no greenhouse gases. All renewables emit zero greenhouse gases and even biomass can be converted to electricity and hydrogen so that it too has zero local emissions. When the focus is a sustainable energy system, these are the “usual suspects.” Energy efficiency While energy efficiency is not a primary energy source, its potential contribution in the face of growing energy service needs was recognized three decades ago.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.007

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research→French-language works237,207→