MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074633815 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v3n5p89

Analysis of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Shortage in Ghana: A Case of the Ashanti Region

2012· article· en· W2074633815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Asamoah, Richard Amoakohene, Ernest Adiwokor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefied petroleum gasEconomic shortageBusinessSupply chainMarketingWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) is increasingly becoming the preferred choice of fuel in the world. The increase in patronage could be attributed to its affordability, efficiency and environmental friendliness. Like other energy sources, there are challenges that impede the smooth supply of LPG resulting in shortage. Several factors are involved which ultimately affects the efficiency of the entire Supply Chain system. The perennial LPG shortage in Ghana is an uncomfortable experience that needs urgent attention. Therefore, the study seeks among others to investigate the magnitude of noted disruptions that contribute to the shortage of LPG and the extent to which the LPG usage categories influence the length and frequency of shortage. A survey methodology was deployed for a total of 35 LPG retailers and 120 consumers in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Results of the study indicated that the Technical and Transportation disruption was ranked by retailers and consumers as major factors that disrupt the supply of LPG. Analysis carried out revealed that the frequency of LPG shortages experienced by consumers depends on the categories of usage, whilst the consumers' experiences of the duration for LPG shortage are rather independent on the categories of usage.

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)0.000
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207