MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213645665 · doi:10.11575/prism/35983

An Exploratory Study Of The Potential Of Crowdfunding For Sustainable Energy Projects In Canada

2017· article· en· W3213645665 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristin Skelton Yang, Yijun

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessExploratory researchSustainable energyMarketingRenewable energyEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowdfunding has been increasingly considered by sustainable entrepreneurs as an alternative means to finance their projects around the world. In Canada, crowdfunding is also gaining the momentum thanks to the regulations on crowdfunding prospectus exemptions that are newly effective across jurisdictions in Canada. Based on the findings from a mixed methods research approach including interviews and an online survey, this paper gives an exploratory assessment of how the founders, funders, intermediary platforms can together make an impact on the success of crowdfunding sustainable projects in Canada. It also seeks to provide insights into how the potential of crowdfunding can be explored for renewable and sustainable energy development. Finally, this paper suggests managerial advice for founders to consider when starting a sustainable energy crowdfunding campaign as well as commercialization implications for intermediary platforms to develop a multi-functional crowdfunding platform that specializes in sustainability including providing supporting services to the sustainable entrepreneurs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0220.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207