Quantifying Electricity Supply Resilience of Countries with Robust Efficiency Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in studying energy systems’ resilience is increasing due to a rising awareness of the importance of having a secure energy supply. This growing trend is a result of a series of recent disruptions, among others also affecting electricity systems. Therefore, it is of crucial importance for policymakers to determine whether their country has a resilient electricity supply. Starting from a set of 12 indicators, this paper uses data envelopment analysis (DEA) to comprehensively evaluate the electricity supply resilience of 140 countries worldwide. Two DEA models are applied: (1) the original ratio-based Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR) model and (2) a novel hybrid framework for robust efficiency analysis incorporating linear programming and Monte Carlo simulations. Results show that the CCR model deems 31 countries as efficient and hence lacks the capability to differentiate them. Furthermore, the CCR model considers only the best weight vectors for each country, which are not necessarily representative of the overall performance of the countries. The robustness analysis explores these limitations and identifies South Korea, Singapore and Canada as the most resilient countries. Finally, country analyses are conducted, where Singapore’s and Japan’s performances and improvement potentials are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it