Green Business Models and the Green Finance Landscape
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
The present report includes two parts. The first part is a literature review that covers specificdimensions of knowledge about Green Business Models (GBMs) in respect of conceptualdefinitions and the assessment of GBMs. The review categorises information into areas thatare deemed of interest for any practitioner wishing to support the development and growth ofgreen business models. The second part provides an overview of the ‘green financelandscape’ and classifies green finance from a structural and from a quantitative perspectivewithin the overall financial market. It further provides an overview of relevant stakeholders inthis landscape, and analyses their potential role for financing and developing green businessmodels. Both parts aim at providing background knowledge necessary to find a commonunderstanding across work processes and project partners of the Green-Win project,facilitating the further work process within the project, in particular the identification andevaluation of concrete GBMs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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