MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903186263 · doi:10.2478/ntpe-2018-0071

Application the Results of Energy Efficiency Audit Planning and Implementation of Fishing Vessels Modernisation

2018· article· en· W2903186263 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcin Szczepanek, P. Rajewski, Dalibor Barta

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Trends in Production Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndependent Electricity System OperatorUniwersytet Szczeciński
KeywordsEfficient energy useAuditFishingEnergy consumptionEnergy conservationModernization theoryBusinessEnvironmental economicsEngineeringOperations managementFisheryAccountingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) became mandatory for new ships as well as the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships due to the MEPC 62 (July 2011) along with the adoption of amendments to MARPOL Annex VI by the Parties to the MARPOL Annex VI. This was the first legally binding climate change treaty to be adopted since the Kyoto Protocol. The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), which has been obligatory since 2013, did not to cover fishing cutters but triggered the implementation of energy efficiency audits due to fishing limits, high fuel prices, and free freight market. A research team of the Maritime University of Szczecin conducted energy efficiency audits on several fishing vessels operated on the Baltic Sea and provided the results to the shipowners. On their grounds, the shipowners started seeking methods to reduce energy consumption. They began modernizing the vessels using the information collected in the reports on energy audits. Usually, the modernization process is performed in several stages. Apart from energy recovery installations, fishing vessels were furnished with the latest technologies aimed at the reduction of energy consumption and at making ships greener. The paper presents results of the said process at the selected fishing cutters operating on the Baltic Sea. The paper includes also the recommendations on the directions of the following stages of the audits.

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)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Trends in Production EngineeringSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207