MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283698874 · doi:10.15294/edaj.v11i2.48032

Energy Poverty and Education: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia

2022· article· en· W4283698874 on OpenAlexaff
Hilma Oktaviani, Djoni Hartono

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics Development Analysis Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyEnergy povertySocioeconomicsGeographyEnergy (signal processing)Economic growthDemographic economicsEconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy poverty in Indonesia has brought negative impacts on various sectors, including education which is the fourth target in the Sustainable Development Goals. This study explores how energy poverty, which is proxied by the percentage of households consuming <32.4 kwh per month in district or cities in Indonesia in 2015 and 2017, affects education, which is proxied by average years of schooling in district or cities in Indonesia in 2019. By applying the 2SLS method, the instrument variable approach used is the geographical characteristics of an area which is the mean elevation value approach in districts or cities to accurately predict the impact of energy poverty on average years of schooling. The results show a negatively significant impact on education for both energy-poor condition. The results for the first condition (2015) shows that 0.993 year of average years of schooling will be lost due to energy poverty. Whereas in the second condition (2017), 0.164 year of average years of schooling will be lost. This research also serves as an empirical evidence that energy poverty does not directly affect the average years of schooling in districts and cities in Indonesia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomics Development Analysis JournalSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207