MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391172718 · doi:10.51594/estj.v5i1.747

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW IN CANADA, USA, AND AFRICA

2024· review· en· W4391172718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanuel Augustine Etukudoh, Ahmad Hamdan, Valentine Ikenna Ilojianya, Cosmas Dominic Daudu, Adefunke Fabuyide

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Science & Technology Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric vehiclePolitical scienceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research paper comprehensively analyzes electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in Canada, the USA, and Africa. Examining technological landscapes, regulatory frameworks, funding mechanisms, and socio-environmental impacts, the study reveals key trends and challenges. The technical overview encompasses Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging, focusing on interoperability and advancements. Government grants, public-private partnerships, and international funding drive infrastructure funding, fostering job creation and economic growth. The analysis reveals diverse cultural and behavioral factors influencing EV adoption, emphasizing the need for tailored communication strategies. The future envisions ultra-fast charging, wireless technologies, and smart ecosystems, demanding collaborative solutions to grid capacity and standardization challenges. This research contributes valuable insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers, guiding the sustainable development of EV charging infrastructure globally. Keywords: Electric Vehicles, Charging Infrastructure, Sustainability, Socioeconomic Impact.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.027
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Science & Technology JournalSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207