MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315781017 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16010045

Energy Crisis Risk Mitigation through Nuclear Power and RES as Alternative Solutions towards Self-Sufficiency

2023· article· en· W4315781017 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy Security and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerRenewable energyNuclear power plantNuclear weaponRadioactive wasteElectricityElectricity generationEnergy developmentHydroelectricityNatural resource economicsPower (physics)EngineeringWaste managementEconomicsPolitical scienceLawElectrical engineeringNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the case of nuclear energy. Currently, the worldworld is facing one of the greatest energy crises due to the Russo-Ukrainian war. This conflict has lead to limited sources of gas, causing a dramatic decrease in energy supply, leading to emerging energy crisis risks. This is one on the main purposes of reviewing nuclear energy as a possible energy alternative in the future. Apart from presenting the basis of nuclear energy and nuclear reactors, we attempt to compare this source of electricity with other renewable energy forms, such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power. Furthermore, we illustrate the benefits and drawbacks that have been observed regarding nuclear power as well as its contribution to economic growth and the impact it has had on the environment. It has been said that, with the use of nuclear power, air pollution will be reduced because of the elimination of greenhouse gases. However, nuclear power, apart from the final product, generates waste that in this case is radioactive, meaning that the management and disposal techniques are of the utmost importance. Of course, unfortunate events that involved nuclear power do exist and are unfortunately engraved in our memories. Both the nuclear accidents, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and nuclear weapons usage by military forces, the well-known atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bring great controversy regarding the adaptation of nuclear power. As is presented in the paper, since the beginning of the new millennium the scheme of energy production and electricity production appears to have changed drastically. By using available data reported by BR, we illustrated that the production of energy and electricity has increased over the last 22 years (2000–2021) due to excessive demand; however, what is more important to mention is the share of both electricity and energy derived from renewable forms such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power. It is shown that more and more countries adopt those sources of energy than did in previous decades. It is crucial to note that it is not the science that causes catastrophic events, but rather the errors of humans.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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