MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313472747 · doi:10.3390/en16010438

Analysis and Modeling of Value Creation Opportunities and Governing Factors for Electric Vehicle Proliferation

2022· article· en· W4313472747 on OpenAlexaff
Abhinav Tiwari, Hany E. Z. Farag

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineElectric vehicleEnvironmental economicsSustainabilityMarket shareMarket penetrationGridOffset (computer science)BusinessComputer scienceIndustrial organizationEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research presents a comprehensive analysis of electric vehicle (EV) proliferation factors and various monetary and non-monetary value streams emerging in the EV domain. A comprehensive mathematical model is implemented to study EV proliferation and the resulting market share applicable to any geography and jurisdictional regime. Further, a novel framework is presented to analyze the interdependency between EV proliferation factors and value streams. The proposed model and framework can be leveraged to quantifiably evaluate the timeline available for grid operators to accommodate EV growth while utilizing those as Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) to improve grid reliability, commercial value, and environmental benefits. Compared to the previous studies, the analysis indicated that if all the factors which impact EV proliferation are addressed simultaneously, EV market share can surpass the internal combustion engine vehicle (ICV) in as quickly as 15–20 years. The study also highlighted the importance of policy making around EVs, which can offset EV market share by up to 10% between two countries following similar sustainability goals. Therefore, the study also helps aid decision making around policies and technology investments by public and private sector organizations in the space of EV.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207