MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296991886 · doi:10.3390/en15196905

Electric Mobility Emission Reduction Policies: A Multi-Objective Optimization Assessment Approach

2022· article· en· W4296991886 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anastasia Soukhov, Ahmed Foda, Moataz Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasReduction strategyEnvironmental economicsReduction (mathematics)Activity-based costingBudget constraintEconomicsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The passenger transportation sector is notoriously sticky to decarbonize because it is interlinked with urban form, individual choice, and economic growth. As the urgency to respond to climate change increases and the transport sector disproportionally increases its contributions to global GHG emissions, there is a need for a more meaningful and transparent application of tools to cost GHG emission reduction. This study presents a multi-objective integer optimization (MIO) model to support the costing and GHG reduction estimation of electric mobility road passenger transportation policies. The model considers both cost and GHG emission minimization under resource constraints and background changes in policy interventions within interval ranges for the province of Ontario’s (Canada) in year 2030. All Pareto optimal solutions are included but results that indicate the optimal policy allocation for two discrete targets are discussed in detail; one scenario where $3 billion spending over ten years is the target and another scenario where the target is 40% GHG reduction in year 2030 (relative to 2005 levels). The MIO approach offers an out-of-the-box solution to support the GHG-reducing decision-making process at all levels of government by implementing optimal policy combinations to achieve GHG emission reductions under a target GHG emission reduction target and/or budget.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207