Is it possible and expedient to create a global energy network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world–wide distribution of primary energy resources does not correspond to the geographical allocation of zones of their consumption. Electricity production and power–plant generating capacity grow everywhere including regions where there are no resources. Electrical power systems already cover not only individual countries, but also groups of countries, and even entire regions. Therefore, the following problem arises: is it possible and expedient to interconnect regional power systems so as to form a global energy network? The technical facilities for such a network are already available: DC transmission systems with voltages up to ± 750 kV and AC transmission systems with voltage up to 1200 kV. The transfer capacities of such transmission systems can reach 5000–6000 MW. There are no technical limitations on constructing international DC electrical transmission systems through any straits. The longest existing DC submarine cable link from Finland to Sweden along the bottom of Botnic Bay has a voltage of 400 kV and a cable length of about 200 km. The efficiency of large regional and international electrical power system interconnections between East Europe–West Europe, USSR–Canada–USA, USSR–Japan, USSR–China is to be investigated. The five countries participating in these interconnections (USA, USSR, Japan, China, Canada) generate almost 60 per cent of all the electric power produced in the world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".