MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Holistic Multi-Criteria Decision and Risk Analysis Method for CCS and GHG Mitigation Projects

2016· book-chapter· en· W2559081640 on OpenAlexaff
John Michael Humphries Choptiany

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in IT personnel and project management · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Production (economics)Relevance (law)Greenhouse gasComputer scienceDecision analysisBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods of electricity generation comprise many different forms with many different benefits and drawbacks. Decisions related to selecting between and how to implement energy production projects can be very complex with significant uncertainty. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one such method. As these options are uncertain and have such varied benefits and drawbacks, they necessitate effective decision analyses. Traditional methods of decision analysis cannot adequately assess these decisions. This chapter outlines a framework to combine decision analysis methods into a comprehensive analysis that is both user friendly and thorough. A sample case study is used to demonstrate the methodology and its relevance to complex decisions such as CCS and other energy production projects.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in IT personnel and project managementSame topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207