MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6940871648 · doi:10.11575/prism/35819

Integrated Evaluation Of A Cogeneration Plant At Alberta Children's Hospital

2009· other· en· W6940871648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCogenerationElectricityElectricity generationNatural gasPrimary energyEfficient energy useCoalEnergy conservation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world requires more efficient and cleaner ways to meet the growing global energy demand. Cogeneration plant is a powerful tool to meet electricity and heat demand for facilities. In Alberta, the use of cogeneration plant would lead to reduce the burning coal and gas emission from the Alberta grid and to use of other cleaner source of energy such as natural gas. However, the use of this new technology requires an integrated evaluation in order to see the benefits from different aspects. Cogeneration plants are suitable for facilities with constant demand of electricity and heat. Therefore, the Alberta Children’s Hospital is a potential user of cogeneration plants. This paper evaluates the feasibility of a cogeneration plant for the hospital considering economic, environmental and social aspects. Moreover, the overall efficiency of the project is evaluated. This evaluation considers energy losses in distribution, network and other losses from the current and future energy configuration of the Hospital in order to measure the big picture benefits of the project.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→