MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626164772 · doi:10.14714/cp85.1372

An Analysis of Interactive Solar Energy Web Maps for Urban Energy Sustainability

2017· article· en· W2626164772 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographic Perspectives · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityOutreachRenewable energyComputer scienceGeographic information systemVariety (cybernetics)Data scienceSet (abstract data type)Architectural engineeringWorld Wide WebGeographyEngineeringRemote sensingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maps and geographic information systems (GIS) have become vital tools for decision-making, communication, and outreach in the domain of urban energy sustainability. One emerging example involves interactive online maps that allow users to assess rooftop solar energy potential on a building of interest. These maps are interesting in two ways: they are new forms of technology in and of themselves, and they have only become relevant with the changes in renewable energy technologies that allow individuals to participate in this new economy of energy production. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the cartographic representation and functionality of urban-scale solar energy maps in the United States. Using competitive analysis, we assess twelve interactive online maps to understand their: (1) design, (2) usage of visual variables and interaction operators, and (3) content, purpose, and goals. Across these three types of assessment, we find both a wide variety as well as some consistent themes. Our results also show that some maps followed cartographic conventions (Brewer 2016; Slocum et al. 2009) while others did not. Through our analysis we develop a set of best practices that can be used to improve the effectiveness and widen the functionality of online solar energy maps. In particular, we make recommendations on how to develop future online, interactive renewable energy maps in a way that keeps the end user in mind while communicating relevant information to a broader range of stakeholders involved in urban energy sustainability (homeowners, utility operators, city officials, and urban planners).

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.301 · 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