The aggregated leapfrogging estimate: a novel approach to defining energy leapfrogging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy leapfrogging (i.e., skipping non-renewable grid infrastructures to micro-grid renewable sources) has been promoted by researchers and politicians as a solution in fighting against climate change and for access to electricity in less developed countries. Despite research on its potential, quantitative measurement of leapfrogging is still required to determine those nations who have utilized energy leapfrogging's promise. In this study, we present a quantitative analysis using World Bank Open Database data from 2000 to 2015, creating an aggregated leapfrogging estimate (ALE) through renewable energy consumption (i.e., percentage of total energy consumption) and access to electricity (i.e., percent of total population with access). We defined the ALE by subtracting (renewable consumption % in 2000 / access to electricity % in 2015) from (renewable consumption % in 2015 / access to electricity in 2000). We included only countries whose renewable energy consumption increased during the study interval. Low-income countries collectively leapfrogged more than other income groups. Somalia (48.11), Togo (3.05), Eswatini (2.76), and Timor-Leste (1.04) all had ALE values greater than 1 (range: 1.7 × 10−5–48.11). We then conducted a policy analysis of these countries, confirming that all four had implemented renewable energy policies to create access to electricity. Our ALE accurately determined countries with energy leapfrogging, uniquely incorporating access to electricity, consistent with the fundamental purpose of leapfrogging as a strategy to increase access. Future studies are needed to understand why low-income countries with low ALEs and access to electricity failed to leapfrog in the past. Future studies are also required to design prospective quantitative statistical models predicting the outcomes of leapfrogging strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".