MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410855804 · doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100736

Emerging technologies in renewable energy: Risk analysis and major investment strategies

2025· article· en· W4410855804 on OpenAlexaff
Eliyad Yamini, Hossein Khazaei, M. Soltani, Walied Alfraidi, Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Futures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicHybrid Renewable Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersImam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic UniversityDeanship of Scientific Research, Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University
KeywordsRenewable energyInvestment (military)BusinessNatural resource economicsEmerging technologiesRisk analysis (engineering)EconomicsEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this era, due to the rising energy crisis the need for establishment of energy plants to tackle this phenomenon is increasing. Renewable energy systems have the advantage of low carbon footprint among other energy production sources, so by integrating the emerging technologies we can step into sustainable development of solving a wide range of problems attracts. In this research, management strategies of such emerging technological innovation for the development of the renewable energy industry are explored in an extended literature analysis. New energy storage facilities and novel systems used to reduce the emissions to zero will need funding from both independent and allied specialized corporate venture capitalist So, the balance between the cost and outcome of these novel systems should be made. Also, there are increasing factors that animate the increase and growth of these novel industries like the cost of externality of fossil fuels , climate change threats among other emerging worrisome trends in the global quest for energy sustainability , beside of the fact that these cleantech ventures still experience significant difficulties because of VCs’ risk profile, preferred exit types, venture capital framing, and familiarity with investment domain inter alia. Such problems can be solved by a different risk-taking process in managing and quantifying constant technological advancements together with a shift in the definition of success terms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable FuturesSame topicHybrid Renewable Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207