Climate Finance Effectiveness: A Comparative Analysis of Geothermal Development in Indonesia and the Philippines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of commitments made under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and Glasgow Climate Pact, trillions of dollars are needed to fund climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. However, few studies have investigated the effectiveness of climate finance or how it impacts barriers to renewable energy development in recipient countries. This article contributes to the literature by investigating climate finance effectiveness through comparative case study analysis of its impacts on geothermal development in Indonesia and the Philippines. The article finds that three mechanisms of climate finance-utility modifier, social learning and capacity building-work interdependently in impacting the financial, regulatory, and technical barriers to geothermal development in Indonesia and the Philippines but are individually insufficient to scale the industry; political will and energy shocks play a significant intervening role. This paper raises policy implications for climate finance effectiveness and renewable energy technology deployment in developing countries.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it