MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462673416 · doi:10.1787/5jlwj0rl3745-en

Energy and Resilient Cities

2016· report· en· W2462673416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leslie Bermont

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD regional development working papers · 2016
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgency for Natural Resources and EnergyMinistère de l'Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l'ÉnergieGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Energy managementEnergy policyEnergy (signal processing)BusinessEnvironmental resource managementPsychological resilienceEfficient energy useEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomicsEngineeringRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses the role of cities in energy policies to build resilience and assesses related energy policy practices in cities. It analyses how energy affects resilience in cities from the economic, environmental, social and institutional perspectives. It also assesses the policy practices of six cities; Barcelona (Spain), Bristol (UK), Kyoto (Japan), Munich (Germany), Perpignan (France) and Toronto (Canada). This paper outlines the building blocks of key policy strategies; adaptive energy management, robust energy management, redundant energy management, flexible energy management, inclusive energy management, resourceful energy management and integrated energy management. It proposes a number of policy measures in the building blocks for managing energy smartly in cities to build resilience.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD regional development working papersSame topicRegional resilience and developmentFrench-language works237,207