MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377021809 · doi:10.33774/coe-2023-q3fzv

Incremental Advances to Address Challenges in Long-Term Strategic Energy Planning in LMICs

2023· preprint· en· W4377021809 on OpenAlexaff
Carla Cannone, Pooya Hoseinpoori, Leigh Martindale, Elizabeth M. Tennyson, Francesco Gardumi, Lucas Somavilla Croxatto, Steve Pye, Yacob Mulugetta, Ioannis Vrochidis, Taco Niet, John Harrison, Rudolf Yeganyan, Martin Mutembei, Adam Hawkes, Lara Allen, William Blyth, Mark Howells

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsEnergy planningSustainabilityBusinessTransparency (behavior)Energy securityDeveloping countryEnvironmental economicsRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementComputer scienceEconomicsEconomic growthRenewable energyComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The climate crisis requires developing countries to urgently decarbonize energy systems and mobilize finance while balancing competing priorities such as economic growth, energy security, environmental sustainability, and social development. However, many developing countries face challenges in developing long-term energy planning strategies, including limited capacity and reliance on external consultants. To address these issues, 21 international organizations and research institutions have developed five strategic principles for energy planning: national ownership, coherence and inclusivity, human capacity development, analysis robustness, and transparency and accessibility of data and tools. This paper discusses joint efforts to promote and apply these principles using science-based evidence and analytical modelling tools, such as the Open Source Energy Modelling System (OSeMOSYS) and the power system IRENA FlexTool. These tools are part of a suite of emerging modelling tools to support climate-compatible development policies and have been included in accessible teaching material, online courses, summer schools, and capacity development programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207