MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890097409 · doi:10.1111/caim.12291

Innovating for low‐carbon energy through hydropower: Enabling a conservation charity's transition to a low‐carbon community

2018· article· en· W2890097409 on OpenAlexaff
John Gallagher, Paul Coughlan, A. Prysor Williams, Aonghus McNabola

Bibliographic record

VenueCreativity and Innovation Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Climate Change Governance
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCarbon offsetHydropowerRenewable energyEnvironmental economicsSustainabilityEnergy conservationLow-carbon economyEnergy transitionEnvironmental resource managementGreenhouse gasEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For an organization to become a low‐carbon community, delivering a range of sustainability initiatives is necessary. Renewable energy (RE) initiatives, offering a source of low‐carbon electricity to offset an organization's energy needs, fit with this objective. This paper examines the role of innovation in achieving low‐carbon energy in the National Trust (NT), a conservation charity and the largest landowner in the UK. It considers how an eco‐design approach to delivering innovative RE projects, specifically hydropower (HP) installations, has supported their transition to a low‐carbon community. Three HP projects delivered on time and within budget were examined; support for each was built through transparent and regular communications with the NT's membership. Despite limited resources and funding for innovation, the NT minimized the associated risk through effective management and external collaboration. It fostered an open environment for creativity and idea sharing, which was key to delivering the RE projects. Innovation was particularly evident in the HP initiatives explored, as eco‐design considerations informed new and innovative design choices and technology selection as each HP project was designed and constructed. Transitioning to a low‐carbon community is an achievable reality for a conservation charity, and this is enabled through the management of innovation to deliver solutions that meet the low‐carbon energy challenge.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCreativity and Innovation ManagementSame topicSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceFrench-language works237,207