MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785134237 · doi:10.6000/2371-1655.2017.03.04

Examination and Comparison of Nuclear Energy with other Available Energy Sources for Electricity Production in Turkey

2018· article· en· W2785134237 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Necibe Füsun Oyman Serteller

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerRenewable energyEnergy developmentWind powerProduction (economics)Environmental economicsEnergy accountingElectricity generationElectricityEnergy engineeringEnvironmental impact of the energy industryEnergy consumptionEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsEnergy policyEngineeringPower (physics)EconomicsPhysicsElectrical engineeringNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper presents the nuclear options for Turkey’s energy future while comparing the other available energy sources. Firstly, importance of sustainable energy sources and policies are discussed. Should existing energy policies which formed mostly by importing energy (natural gas) from the neighbors’ countries continue or should find different alternatives such as local energy sources (wind and solar energy) and nuclear energy be evaluated. Then, the potential of the local renewable sources convenient for Turkey, such as wind and solar are investigated and compare with the nuclear energy. The advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy usage, as well as the place of nuclear energy in electricity production in the world are scrutinized. It is clear that the usefulness of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants depend heavily upon the progress in technical developments. Improving technology on operation systems and waste problems of them brings more secure and more environment friendly power plants. Finally, our current energy consumption and energy need in short and medium term (+50) conducted for the evaluation of nuclear power plants are discussed.Â

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Humanities and Social Science ResearchSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207