MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380029001 · doi:10.54254/2755-2721/3/20230348

Comparative analysis of renewable energy

2023· article· en· W4380029001 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ziyuan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Computational Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyWind powerEnvironmental economicsClimate changeEnergy transitionNatural resource economicsNatural resourceProcess (computing)Environmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our current reliance on non-renewable sources of energy has put a strain on the limitations of our planet and its natural resources. The purpose of this study was to comparatively assess the various physical and socioeconomic factors affecting a city and its residents ability to effectively transition to renewable energy sources such as solar or wind energy. Using climate datasets to assess the potential of both wind and solar energy for Edmonton, AB, and Columbus, OH. the researcher paired these findings with assessments of urban development, socioeconomic factors present in both cities to fully understand the current challenges we face in transitioning to renewable energy. The findings indicate that while the area of land needed to supply Edmonton with energy from 100% renewable sources would be vast (1815 km2; 6412 Wind Turbines), it would be possible to accomplish. A change as large as this cannot be made instantaneously and cities will face various challenges in this process, but it is crucial to make this transition in order to become a more sustainable society and live more harmoniously with the natural environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Computational EngineeringSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207