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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across the world, there is a growing commitment to power from renewable sources. The benefits are obvious and well known: reduce reliance on fossil fuel consumption and thereby achieve both lower greenhouse gas emissions and greater local control over the power industry. The main challenge, however, is that private costs of green power production remain higher than for power from conventional resources. There are numerous policy approaches that can be used to overcome this competitive disadvantage, one of which is to legislate that power from renewable sources is to constitute a minimum percent of all power sold to end users, i.e., a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Such standards have previously been reviewed in general terms by Rader and Norgaard (1996), who motivate the RPS on efficiency grounds given market imperfections. Rader (1998) points out that it is unlikely that restructured electricity markets will enhance the market position of renewable sources of electricity. Accordingly, many states and countries that have gone through restructuring to enhance competition have adopted an RPS. Berry and Jaccard (200 I) review implementation issues in several countries and US stales that have taken this route.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it