MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122793472 · doi:10.21601/ejosdr/9346

Exergy Analysis as a Tool for Addressing Climate Change

2021· article· en· W3122793472 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Sustainable Development Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExergyEnvironmental economicsClimate changeSustainable energyExergy efficiencyEfficient energy useEnvironmental scienceEnergy (signal processing)SustainabilitySustainable developmentEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEconomicsEngineeringRenewable energyProcess engineeringPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exergy is described as a tool for addressing climate change, in particular through identifying and explaining the benefits of sustainable energy, so the benefits can be appreciated by experts and non-experts alike and attained. Exergy can be used to understand climate change measures and to assess and improve energy systems. Exergy also can help better understand the benefits of utilizing sustainable energy by providing more useful and meaningful information than energy provides. Exergy clearly identifies efficiency improvements and reductions in wastes and environmental impacts attributable to sustainable energy. Exergy can also identify better than energy the environmental benefits and economics of energy technologies. Exergy should be applied by engineers and scientists, as well as decision and policy makers, involved in addressing climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.270 · 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