Comment l’industrie du gaz naturel peut-elle faire progresser les objectifs de double carbone? Une étude de cas de la Chine selon la perspective de la chaîne industrielle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le gaz naturel apparait comme une source énergétique de transition idoine, car ses effets socioécologiques sont moins nocifs que le pétrole ou le charbon (p. ex., faible émission de dioxyde de carbone), tandis que son efficacité énergétique est plutôt élevée et que ses coûts d’exploitation sont relativement abordables. Cet article vise à explorer le cas spécifique de la Chine, notamment comment son industrie du gaz naturel peut contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs de pic d’émissions de CO2 et de carboneutralité (double carbone) formulés par le gouvernement chinois. Après une introduction au sujet, l’article présente les principes, procédures et processus relatifs à l’exploitation du gaz naturel, puis examine de manière plus détaillée le cas chinois. Une dernière section synthétise l’article et évoque les perspectives en proposant des recommandations quant à l’industrie du gaz naturel en Chine pour cheminer vers la carboneutralité.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".