Dynamic Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digitalization in the Energy Industry
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
Assessing the benefits and costs of digitalization in the energy industry is a complex issue. Traditional cost–benefit analysis (CBA) might encounter problems in addressing uncertainties, dynamic stakeholder interactions, and feedback loops arising out of the evolving nature of digitalization. This paper introduces a methodological framework to help address the intricate inter connections between digital applications and business models in the energy industry. The proposed framework leverages system dynamics to achieve two primary objectives. It investigates how digitalization generally influences the value proposition, value capture, and value creation dimensions of business models. It also quantifies the financial and social impacts of digitalization from a dynamic perspective. The proposed dynamic CBA allows for a more precise quantification of the benefits and costs, associated with evidence-based decision-making. Findings from an illustrative case study challenge the static assumptions of conventional methods. These methods often presume continuous operation, neglecting reinvestment and operational feedback loops, and resulting in negative net present values. Conversely, the outcomes of the proposed method indicate positive net present values when accounting for factors such as reinvestment rates and the willingness to invest in digitalization projects. The principles outlined in this paper can enable a more accurate assessment of digitalization projects, thus catalyzing the development of new CBA applications and guidelines for digitalization.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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