Ghana’s energy access journey so far: a review of key strategies
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive review of the programmes being implemented with a view to ascertaining if they adequately address the energy needs of the poor more holistically and sustainably. Design/methodology/approach The content of this desktop review is based on information collected through a review of available energy policy documents from the Ghana Government and related governmental agencies, such as the Energy Commission and Ghana Statistical Services, international energy-related agencies, such as the International Energy Agency (World Vision, 2013), as well as other related web searches. Additionally, global and Sub-Saharan African energy access documents were reviewed by analysing secondary data from the World Bank and UN policy reports, statistical data, strategies, regulations, protocols and other related documents (World Vision, 2013). Furthermore, some policy documents on energy access and usage were explored mainly from Senegal and Ghana to ascertain governments’ policies, regulations and strategies in the implementation of energy access policies. Findings The paper offers all the various strategies being implemented in an attempt to establish a foothold on the problem of affording the poor with clean and affordable energies. The paper also presents the rich experiences of Senegal in its bid to see expanded access in liquefied petroleum gas usage by residential consumers. Originality/value The paper provides some policy and theoretical implications for improving Ghana’s energy access.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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