MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197378999 · doi:10.11159/ijepr.2021.004

Energy Transition in Malta: Understanding the Implications on the Environment and Public Perception

2021· article· en· W3197378999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nirvana Avellino, Juan José Bonello

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Pollution and Remediation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionTransition (genetics)Energy (signal processing)Energy transitionPsychologyPolitical scienceCognitive psychologySocial psychologyEconomic geographyGeographyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Malta, different sources of fuel have been used to generate electricity, including the traditional coal fired systems and the recent natural gas power station.This study will investigate the possible implications on the air and soil quality, as well as the social perception of the energy transition from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to liquified natural gas (LNG) in Malta.The implications of air pollutants emitted from power stations are well documented and whilst they may affect the local air quality due to the mobile nature of such substances, implications can be considered to be both regional and subsequently global.These pollutants may act directly on different environmental matrices since they can eventually end up in soil and water through precipitation.Understanding the public perception is important since it will help in identifying particular knowledge gaps and misinformation, as well as the willingness of the public to change the status quo on specific environmental issues.The parameters analysed for air quality were nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).The results show that the oldest power station emitted high quantities of emissions when compared to the other power stations.Soil samples, from the surface and from the bottom, were collected in close proximity (within a radius of 1km to 5km) to the power stations and two control sites were sampled over a period of one-year.Two sites that were near the power stations demonstrated a high concentration of sulfates in the soil.However, a control site that was far away from the power stations depicted a higher level of sulfates.This could imply other sources of sulfates in soil other than from electricity generation.When it comes to public perception and disposition, survey results showed that the public noted and acknowledged a change in air quality over time.According to the findings, the public is aware and has been well informed with regards to the advantages related to liquified natural gas as an energy source, yet the public seems not to be aware of the advantages related to heavy fuel oil.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Pollution and RemediationSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207