MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967512239 · doi:10.1093/jwelb/jwq022

Wind power to the people: overcoming legal, policy and social barriers to wind energy development in South Africa

2011· article· en· W1967512239 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. M. Duguay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Energy Law & Business · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth African History and Culture
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerPower (physics)Energy (signal processing)Political scienceSociologyLawEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind energy project development in the Republic of South Africa has advanced rapidly following the issuance of a renewable energy feed-in tariff by the government in 2009. However, the legal, policy and social aspects of this technology are proving to be the most difficult obstacles for wind energy proponents to surmount. This article takes a close look at the energy history of South Africa, the realities policymakers face today, the shifting ethics of energy law and the actions of key stakeholders to date. The Draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) has set firm targets for wind energy capacity development, but macro policy does not seem to properly integrate emerging norms in African energy governance. The IRP2 does recognize that social policy strategies need to be developed in order to make the wind energy sector flourish in South Africa, but little scope to any such strategy is given by this important policy document. A new relationship must be forged between industry, government and communities to help drive the rollout of wind energy in South Africa.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of World Energy Law & BusinessSame topicSouth African History and CultureFrench-language works237,207