Comparaison Des Consommations De Charbon De Bois Des Foyers Améliorés Et Des Foyers Métalliques, Une Approche Modélisée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of households in a suburban area of Madagascar has enabled us to discern the use of improved cook stoves and metal charcoal stoves, depending on the socio-economic, cultural and technical factors characterizing the households. This study presents a model of charcoal consumption for these two stoves, using quantitative and qualitative variables. The models developed make it possible to compare the two stoves in terms of the average quantity of charcoal consumed monthly by the households. As a result, for both stoves, household size correlates positively with charcoal consumption, while price correlates inversely. A forecast charcoal price of 725 Ariary (local currency) per kilo results in an 11.3% drop in consumption, on average, for both types of charcoal stove. However, a 2.8% reduction in charcoal expenditure with improved cook stoves, and just 0.15% with metal stoves. Households with metal households are therefore less sensitive to price variations. The life-standing character of the electricity bill is also verified, i.e. wealthier families consume more electrical energy than poorer ones. With metal stoves, the number of baccalaureate holders correlates positively with charcoal consumption. As for the type of housing occupied by households, the better it is, the lower the charcoal consumption. Furthermore, it is proved that the charcoal saved by using improved cook stoves is only 2.44% by weight. Households using improved cook stoves consumed an average of 9.663 kg/cap/month, compared with 9.899 kg/cap/month for metal stoves. This is still a long way from the expected results. Market regulation, training and sensitizing activities concerning improved cook stoves are needed to achieve the objectives set and to ensure the sustainability of the programs promoting these stoves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".