MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063236973 · doi:10.1177/0270467606291534

The Hydrogen Economy as a Technological Bluff

2006· article· en· W2063236973 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Academic Research Areas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy carrierHydrogen economyBluffElectricityHydrogenEnergy (signal processing)PaceFossil fuelPrimary energyEnergy sourceService (business)Hydrogen fuelEnvironmental scienceBusinessEconomyEconomicsEngineeringWaste managementPhysicsElectrical engineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydrogen economy is a technological bluff in its implied assurance that, despite the accelerating pace at which we are depleting the remaining half of our fossil fuels, our energy future is secure. Elementary thermodynamic considerations are developed to show that a hydrogen economy is about as feasible as a perpetual motion machine. Hydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier, and when produced renewably, it is an energy carrier to the second degree, with electricity being the energy carrier to the first degree. As such, it greatly elongates the chain of energy transformations required to deliver a desired service from a primary source of energy. There will undoubtedly be applications in which hydrogen may be essential, but they will be limited because the services it delivers will come at a substantial energy premium.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.049
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.279 · 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