MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383818684 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v25i3.6198

Evaluating the Net Effect of the ISDE Subsidy Scheme in the Netherlands – Comparison of Evaluation Methods to Estimate Additionality

2023· article· en· W4383818684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R.J.M. Niessink

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdditionalitySubsidyGovernment (linguistics)StoveInvestment (military)Order (exchange)EconomicsBusinessEnvironmental economicsEngineeringFinanceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The national government encourages Dutch households and businesses to use less natural gas and more sustainable heat. The Sustainable Energy Investment Subsidy (Dutch: Investeringssubsidie Duurzame Energie or ISDE), which has been in place since 2016, provides a subsidy for the purchase of solar boilers, heat pumps, biomass boilers and pellet stoves. The scheme is meant for both private individuals and business users. An important element in the evaluation of the ISDE was the ‘additionality’ of the scheme. This was evaluated by the Dutch organization for applied natural scientific research (TNO) in 2018 and by SEO Economic Research (SEO) in 2019. In this paper the evaluation methods are described, compared and critically reviewed in order to identify uncertainties and limitations of the methods and possible improvements. The methods lead to different results for the additionality of the ISDE scheme per type of device and this paper looks into the reasons for this. Additional evaluation studies’ results depend on many factors elaborated on in this paper.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207