MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959671599 · doi:10.2495/eq-v4-n2-145-157

Risk assessment of renewable energies: Global exposure

2019· article· en· W2959671599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Chebotareva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Energy Production and Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Science Foundation
KeywordsRenewable energyEnvironmental scienceRisk assessmentEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current stage of renewable energy (RE) development poses new challenges to this sector.The existing mechanisms of state stimulation of Renewable energy system are gradually exhausting its capacity.This requires the development of new methods to support the industry, or giving them up altogether.This article presents the results of the theoretical analysis of the systemic features of RE risk assessment at each stage of a project's life cycle.A sectoral approach to the risk assessment of energy projects is proposed.It is based on the well-known logit-model that studies a set of external and internal indicators.Based on this model, a study of the dynamics of the risk indicators of RE projects on three basic stages was conducted.Calculations were made for RE projects implemented in different countries of the world, including China, USA, Canada, Japan, India and a number of European countries.Initially, all projects were divided into three main groups depending on the types of state support: concessional lending, subsidies or the lack thereof.Based on the results of the calculations, the overall and average dynamics of risk by group and by project stage allowed for assessing the global effectiveness of state measures to support the sector, as well as for drawing appropriate conclusions in the context of individual countries.The results of the study are of practical importance and will be used in developing a new approach to risk assessment, taking into account the specifics of the RE market, as well as in enhancing the concept of competition in the global energy market.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Energy Production and ManagementSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207