MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168358341

RETScreen{sup R} International : results and impacts 1996-2012

2004· article· en· W3168358341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gregory J. Leng, A Monarque, Shannon Graham, S Higgins, H Cleghorn

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringRenewable energyWork (physics)Plan (archaeology)Environmental economicsEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notable achievements that the RETScreen International Clean Energy Project Analysis Software has earned since its launch in 1996 were presented along with an independent study that assesses the present and future impacts of this decision support tool which evaluates the economics of renewable energy installations. RETScreen is focused on overcoming the barriers for implementing renewable energy technologies (RETs) across Canada and building a foundation for sustainable development. The analysis tool has been used in 196 countries (mostly industrialized countries) and has been integrated into other enabling tools such as international product cost and weather databases and and online user manuals. Its use can help reduce the cost of pre-feasibility studies. The primary distribution and communication point for RETScreen International is a website where users can access all products and services available, including an electronic textbook for professionals and university students interested in learning how to analyse the technical and financial viability of clean energy projects. A list of 20 Canadian and 20 international projects facilitated by RETScreen was included along with a work plan for 2004 to 2008. To date, 616 projects have been launched using RETScreen. These projects have a cumulative installed capacity of 1,150 MW with an average reported annual savings of $34,257 per user for project implementers and $7,872 per user for project facilitators. refs., tabs., figs.

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)0.003
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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.008

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207