MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221138041 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac5cf5

Increasing the reliability of energy system scenarios with integrated modelling: a review

2022· review· en· W4221138041 on OpenAlexafffund
Taco Niet, Nastaran Arianpoo, Kamaria Kuling, A.S. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Nexus (standard)Best practiceEnergy modelingManagement scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Data scienceWork (physics)Efficient energy useEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Systems models are an important tool for policy and energy planning decisions. These models generally fall into one of three modelling paradigms: energy economy, capacity expansion or power sector planning. Recent work seeks to combine these paradigms into an integrated framework to leverage the benefits of different model types. There is also interest and research in representing more system interactions to expand the modelling nexus. However, this increases model complexity and risks creating more black box models that are not well understood or trusted by users or policymakers. To understand the trade-offs and best practices of using combined models, we review current modelling practices, including an overview of the different modelling paradigms in the literature, how combined modelling has been applied to date and how the nexus has been represented in different modelling applications. Building on the literature review, we held a series of expert elicitation workshops to gain insight from energy modelling domain experts who use combined models. Finally, we encapsulate these findings and best practices into a modelling evaluation framework. We find that while there is interest and research being done in these areas, there are no set standards for how to build these types of models, resulting in a wide range of practices. Increasing model complexity to develop fully hard-linked coupled models that are also trustworthy and transparent generally requires more time and resources than is worthwhile. Instead, the focus should be on avoiding black box models by having a clear modelling purpose and developing best practices that allow for clarity and transparency. Expanding the nexus to include attributes such as biodiversity and cultural security presents a challenge and representing them as a cost is not congruent to equitable policy. These aspects could be better incorporated into analysis using stakeholder debate and citizens’ assemblies.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207