MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248386176 · doi:10.1049/pbpo130e_ch1

Introduction

2018· book-chapter· en· W4248386176 on OpenAlex
Rupp Carriveau, David S.‐K. Ting

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitution of Engineering and Technology eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyWind powerGovernment (linguistics)LocalityBusinessNatural resourceSolar energyArchitectural engineeringGeographyEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental economicsEngineeringPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceEconomicsLawElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter introduces the introduction of wind and solar energy for communities. According to dictionary.com, a community is a social group of any size whose members dwell in a specific locality under one government, and they share the same cultural and historical heritage. Accordingly, both big cities and small towns are communities. Their future leans on, among other things, the proper management of sustainable energy and natural resources that they feed. For the more progressive localities, there is already in place some solid share of renewable energy; wind, in particular. Other than the promise of including a greater extent of solar, these wind-fed communities must look at ways to further their current and future wind. To improve performance and maintenance of the existing, particularly wind, infrastructure alone would render significant stability in the community, renewable energy systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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