Impactos e aceitação social de energias renováveis na matriz elétrica brasileira: o caso do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy efficiency and renewable energy resources are key strategies for sustainable energy planning to ensure economic competiveness, minimization of environmental impacts and social equity. So far in Brazil, energy planning has been focusing predominantly on both economic and environmental dimensions. Social aspects are mentioned as relevant but frequently are not explicitly taken into account in energy decisions. This work aims at contributing for the inclusion of the social dimension on electricity planning by presenting and demonstrating a participative methodology that can support the decision making process for an electricity system with high reliance on renewable energy sources. The research focused on a case study of a region in Brazil, characterized by high solar and wind potential namely the State of Rio Grande do Norte (RN). The methodology included both interviews with experts and questionnaires to the population. The interviews aimed at collecting both qualitative and quantitative information and resulted on the sustainability evaluation of different electricity production options in RN. For the analysis of public awareness and acceptance of renewable energy sources by the population, a questionnaire was implemented on the academic community of Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (IFRN). From the case study of RN it was possible to conclude on the important role of renewable energies in the future electricity system, in particular for the case of wind and solar energy. The impacts of all electricity generation are recognized and the involvement of local population is deemed to be a key element for the effective development of the sector. The results of the questionnaire showed that the target population, representative of IFRN, is highly favourable to both solar and wind power technologies which is largely explained by the associated perspectives of local development. As for NIMBY ( Not In My BackYard) situation, frequently reported in the literature in different countries, it is not yet significant in RN but its importance should not be overlooked given the projected future growth of the renewable sector.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".