Comparative evaluation of different options for energy system development in small countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper an approach, proposed in the frame of the IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) and its Collaborative Project “Key indicators for innovative nuclear energy systems” (KIND) for a multi-criteria comparative assessment of different energy options was studied and applied. Comparative evaluation of two hypothetical energy systems - nuclear and non-nuclear was performed in the context of co-operation between small countries in the Balkan region. The evaluation was based on various criteria grouped into selected areas to cover different dimensions in terms of sustainability - economic, environment, public, safety, infrastructure. The results show that nuclear option obtained higher total scores and is thus the preferred option. The nuclear option performs better in the areas of economics, environment and national security and non-nuclear option has the advantage in areas of waste management, safety, public acceptance and infrastructure. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis performed in the study enable to consider the impact of the input uncertainties on the ranking results and their stability. The study could be used to support decision makers in energy policy at national level, demonstrating the application of methodology.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".