MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998646493 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-347-4_10

Foreign Assistance in Establishing and Operating Nuclear Power Plants: The South African Experience

2020· book-chapter· en· W2998646493 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yolandi Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueT.M.C. Asser Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsNuclear powerEnergy securityPoliticsBusinessEnergy (signal processing)International tradePolitical scienceNatural resource economicsDevelopment economicsEngineeringEconomicsRenewable energyLawNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear energy has become an issue of debate, especially in light of the need for electricity production on the African continent. However, concerns have been raised regarding African States’ ability to effectively sustain safe nuclear programs for the purpose of energy production. These include financial, political and security concerns. It appears that there is a balance to be struck between pursuing the potential sustainable source of energy that nuclear energy could provide, and managing the risks associated with this kind of technology. Another possible pitfall of nuclear energy in Africa has been illustrated by the recent South African nuclear deal with Russia. This deal has clearly demonstrated the potential for corruption and foreign influence in future nuclear projects in African States. This chapter aims to briefly investigate the potential for nuclear energy in Africa, and elucidate how other African States can draw on the South African experience to ensure that any future nuclear projects occur in a safe and sustainable manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueT.M.C. Asser Press eBooksSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207