MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001583536 · doi:10.1680/ensu.2006.159.4.155

Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK

2006· article· en· W2001583536 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dexter V. L. Hunt, Ian Jefferson, Ljubomir Jankovic, K. Hunot

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRenewable energyRedevelopmentBrownfieldSustainabilityEnvironmental economicsLimitingBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Investment (military)Environmental planningEngineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eastside, a 130 ha brownfield site located to the eastern side of Birmingham's city centre, is undergoing social, economic and environmental changes, driven mainly through public and private investment estimated to be worth £6 billion. The regeneration programme is well under way and it aims to turn a once deprived inner-city area into the regions first ‘sustainability quarter’ Achieving a sustainable quarter, in terms of energy, will require reductions to be made in energy demands compared to typical practice, for example through more thermally efficient buildings and utilisation of low-energy technologies. In addition it will require these demands to be met through renewable technologies rather than fossil fuels. This paper presents estimates for the total energy demands from the various developments planned within Eastside assuming typical and good-practice scenarios. The paper then assesses the feasibility of introducing various renewable energy supply technologies and combined heat and power (CHP) technologies in order to meet these demands. Finally the paper presents a simplified costing scheme for assessing the potential of renewable technologies to secure energy supplies while limiting carbon emissions. The renewable technologies are compared directly, aiming at providing an independent viewpoint for decision makers when considering which technologies to adopt. While the study focuses on Eastside, the lessons learned from this study are vitally important for redevelopment programmes being undertaken elsewhere.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering SustainabilitySame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207