MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411100631 · doi:10.36399/degrowth.003.01.03

Winds of Change: Supply Chain Analysis of a Wind Turbine

2025· article· en· W4411100631 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDegrowth Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategies and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsTurbineSupply chainEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyBusinessEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeptics of degrowth often place their hopes in clean energy technologies, such as wind turbines, to offset the consequences associated with a growing economy that demands equally high rates of energy.Rather than reduce economic production, as proponents of degrowth argue is necessary to mitigate social and environmental consequences, clean energy is held up as a perfect 'business as usual' solution that will allow economic growth to continue.Taking a degrowth perspective, this paper uses a supply chain analysis to de-fetishize the wind turbine as a source of immaterial clean energy.While affirming that renewable energy technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels are necessary, they are insufficient from a degrowth perspective to offset the consequences of continuous growth.Instead, technological improvements, including wind power, must be complimented by policy that reduces economic impact overall.For many, wind turbines are the most visible symbols of clean, renewable energy.For others, wind turbines "are themselves embodiments of fossil fuels" (Smil, 2016, p.27).A single wind turbine is the culmination of enormous production processes that include the transportation of tons of steel and raw materials by truck, the preparation of sites by cranes and excavators, and the coordination of freight trains and cargo ships (Bai et al.,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDegrowth JournalSame topicBusiness Strategies and InnovationFrench-language works237,207