MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025059390 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n3p3

Small-Scale Use of Solar Power in Remote, Developing Regions: A Case Study

2011· article· en· W2025059390 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian Osende, John Abraham, Greg Mowry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of St. Thomas
KeywordsModular designSolar powerElectrical engineeringPhotovoltaic systemMaximum power point trackingElectric power systemElectricityComputer scienceBattery (electricity)TelecommunicationsPower (physics)EngineeringVoltageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A solar-power-based electrical system was designed to provide power to a small, remote village in Western Uganda. The purpose of the project was to electrify the village by providing lighting and electrical outlets for use with small electronic devices. The size of the village (fifty homes, one school, and one pharmacy) allowed a centrally positioned solar-battery system that was directly wired to the houses. The system was designed in a modular manner so that redundancy could be achieved and security was improved; the system would continue to function after the loss of a portion of the solar-charging station.The entire system required eight solar panels, each capable of producing 175W in full sunlight. The panels were used to charge two 12V batteries which were connected in series to produce 24V of DC power. The batteries, which were charged during daytime, are discharged at night when power is utilized by the village. To improve the process by which energy is transferred to the batteries, a Maximum Power Point Tracking system (MPPT) was used. Inverters were instituted to transform the DC power from the batteries to 240V AC power for transmission.Following the successful implementation of the system, an education program was instituted to ensure proper maintenance of the system in the coming years. Plans are already underway to ensure that periodic replacement of certain components (e.g. batteries) is accomplished to ensure that the system is able to continue to provide electricity for years to come.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207