MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101094700 · doi:10.3126/hn.v8i0.4908

Large-Scale Promotion of Animal Dung-based Domestic Biogas Digesters through Public Private Partnership: A Successful Case of Nepal

2012· article· en· W2101094700 on OpenAlexaff
Govind Raj Pokharel, Arjun Bahadur Chettri

Bibliographic record

VenueHydro Nepal Journal of Water Energy and Environment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyMillennium Development GoalsGeneral partnershipPromotion (chess)BusinessPublic–private partnershipBiogasScale (ratio)Private sectorSustainable developmentStakeholderEconomic growthEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEngineeringEconomicsDeveloping countryPolitical scienceGeographyPoliticsWaste managementManagementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale promotion of small scale decentralized renewable energy technologies to achieve a part of millennium development goal remained a great challenge until recently. However, a properly implementation of a public private partnership applied in biogas sector in Nepal has shown that scaling up of small scale renewable energy technologies is feasible if a multi-stakeholder sector development approach and favorable policy as well as modality is adopted. Nepal’s biogas program has been instrumental in helping to achieve some of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by creating economic and social development opportunities in a sustainable way. Such model could also be widely replicated in any other renewable energy technologies and other continent of the world. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/hn.v8i0.4908Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and Environment Issue No. 8, 2011 JanuaryPage: 29-33Uploaded date: 17 June, 2011

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydro Nepal Journal of Water Energy and EnvironmentSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207