Combined heat and power system optimisation under carbon pricing policy: a comparison of five carbon markets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The installation and optimisation of a gas turbine combined heat and power system was studied in an effort to reduce or eliminate financial liability under five different carbon pricing schemes around the world by becoming more energy efficient. The system was applied to a case study and configured to operate under carbon prices in Australia, the UK (EU ETS), New Zealand, California (USA) and British Columbia (Canada). As a policy designed to promote a reduction in emissions; the policy was successful in three of the five schemes namely Australia, the UK and British Columbia. These results were identified by systems that became unprofitable once financial liability was introduced for carbon emissions. The Australian carbon price was also examined in terms of effectiveness in light of its expected repeal. The Australian system ranked fourth of the five markets studied in terms of financial benefit both when financially liable and not liable for carbon pricing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it