Impact of Proof of Work (PoW)-Based Blockchain Applications on the Environment: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology is being looked at to solve numerous real-world problems that demand transparency by meeting sustainable goals. Do we ponder whether this technology is a boon or a bane for the environment? This paper analyses blockchain’s dominant consensus method, Proof-of-Work (PoW), which consumes more energy than Malaysia and Sweden and further deteriorates the environment through carbon emissions. This study is the first systematic evaluation of PoW consensus-based blockchain applications’ environmental consequences. We found 11 significant Theories, 6 Contexts, and 26 Methodologies (TCM) in 60 reviewed articles. We propose an Antecedents, Drivers, and Outcomes (ADO) model, which depicts that marginal profits drive high energy consumption and carbon emissions, with non-renewable energy proportionally responsible for carbon emissions. The article distinctively uses an integrated TCM-ADO framework for literature synthesis and the PESTLE framework for reporting future research areas. This is the first study to use the following four frameworks: PRISMA; TCM; ADO; and PESTLE for systematic literature review. Profit is identified as one of the most significant drivers of energy consumption and further carbon emissions. The article proposes 65 future research areas and makes theoretical contributions to the literature that may interest academicians, practitioners, and social stakeholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it