Blockchain for Energy Credits and Certificates: A Comprehensive Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is a major issue that has disastrous impacts on the environment through different causes like the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. Many energy utilities around the world intend to reduce GHG emissions by promoting different systems including carbon emission trading (CET), renewable energy certificates (RECs), and tradable white certificates (TWCs). However, these systems are centralized, highly regulated, and operationally expensive and do not meet transparency, trust and security requirements. Accordingly, GHG emission reduction schemes are gradually moving towards blockchain-based solutions due to their underpinning characteristics including decentralization, transparency, anonymity, and trust (independent from third parties). This paper performs a comprehensive investigation into the blockchain technology, deployed for GHG emission reduction plans. It explores existing blockchain solutions along with their associated challenges to effectively uncover their potentials. As a result, this study suggests possible lines of research for future enhancements of blockchain systems particularly their incorporation in GHG emission reduction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it