Impact of Ad Blockers on Computer Power Consumption while Web Browsing: A Comparative Analysis
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
This study explores the impact of various ad blockers on power consumption during web browsing, focusing on different types of online content. By analyzing power use across ten popular websites, the study assesses the performance of five widely utilized ad blockers: AdBlock, AdBlock Plus, uBlock, uBlock Origin, and uBlock Origin Lite. Power consumption was measured under controlled conditions, comparing scenarios with and without ad blockers to gain insight into their efficiency. The findings indicate substantial differences in power savings, with some ad blockers significantly reducing power usage, particularly on media-heavy sites, while others unexpectedly increased consumption under certain conditions. The study underscores the potential of ad blockers to enhance power efficiency in digital environments, highlighting the importance of optimizing ad-blocking techniques to reduce the environmental impact of online activities. Through comprehensive analysis and comparison, this research offers insights into selecting effective ad blockers to minimize power consumption, promoting more sustainable web browsing practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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