MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383477618 · doi:10.59440/ceer-2023-0003

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES - BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE EXPERIENCES OF CHINA, BRAZIL, CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

2023· article· en· W4383477618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edyta Nartowska, Alina ROZENVALDE

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil And Environmental Engineering Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPolitechnika Swietokrzyska w Kielcach
KeywordsRenewable energyChinaBusinessPhotovoltaic systemEnvironmental economicsEnvironmentally friendlyWind powerEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEconomicsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the article was to identify actions, based on the experiences of China, Brazil, Canada, and the United States, that countries can implement to increase the share of hydro, solar, and wind energy in their economies. The analysis relied on a literature review and data obtained from the Our World In Data database. The findings indicate that there are effective strategies for clean energy adoption that can be applied worldwide. Key considerations include investing in appropriate infrastructure, developing new energy storage technologies, and implementing environmentally friendly methods for disposing of photovoltaic panels. It is essential to provide financial support for scientific research, particularly in assessing the long-term potential of renewable energy, considering geographic distribution, and evaluating public acceptance. Regulatory frameworks should strike a balance between promoting renewable energy expansion and avoiding excessive growth.

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)0.002
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil And Environmental Engineering ReportsSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207