Framework and Key Success Factors of Governance and Sustainability of Very Small Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inordinate municipal solid waste issues and ever increasing demand for electricity, the Thai government formulated the Power Development Plan focusing on supporting the use of renewable energy to generate electricity and using measures to promote the purchase of electricity from very small power producers. This support indubitably leads to the question as to whether Very Small Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants (VSMSWPPs) are sustainable or not. Thus, this study aims to develop a framework and key success factors for evaluating governance and sustainability of VSMSWPPs in Thailand. It consists of documentary research and interviews with professionals, policy makers, practitioners and power plant owners conducted to develop the framework and determine the key success factors. Subsequently, the framework and factors were assessed by 12 experts. The good governance and sustainability concepts were selected as a framework and used to construct key success factors to evaluate the performance of VSMSWPPs. The framework contains four dimensions and each dimension had key success factors as follows: (1) Governance dimension with 7 key success factors; (2) Economic dimension with 8 key success factors; (3) Social dimension with 5 key success factors; and (4) Environmental dimension with 7 key success factors: at total of 27 key success factors.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".