MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272319713

A comparative cost assessment of electricity outages and generation expansion in Zimbabwe

2014· article· en· W2272319713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nyasha Kaseke

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityQuarter (Canadian coin)AgricultureTotal costElectricity generationOperations managementEconomic costEngineeringSecondary sector of the economyAgricultural economicsBusinessEconomicsGeographyEconomyAccountingPower (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study assesses the sectorial cost of electricity outages and cost of expanding own generation to avert outages in Zimbabwe. The main sectors used were agriculture, mining, industry and households. These sectors lost significantly due to electricity outages. The cost has been assessed on the basis of direct and indirect cost. Sector surveys were carried out. Questionnaires were used as the main research instruments. Results revealed that households were exposed to more outages and other sectors were priorities. Mining reported the highest both direct and indirect outage cost per mine and in total industrial sector reported the highest. For the overall sector cost, industry reported the highest cost and households the least. Total outage cost for one year represents a quarter of total expansion cost required to avert the problem. The study concluded that expansion is a must to avoid electricity outages. The study recommends large scale expansion in generation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social SciencesSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207