Intersectional Analysis of Energy Practices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This document examines the energy-related practices that take place in six case-study communities located in France, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. This exploration is conducted as part of a research project exploring the ‘human factor’ in the energy system, within which a complementary study of the perceptions and attitudes towards energy technologies has also been produced. Both of these studies are taking an intersectional approach to the analysis, recognising that people have multiple, interdependent, overlapping axes of social identity – these studies focus particularly on issues of gender, socio-economic privilege and age. The purpose of the report is to move away from the dominant behaviouralist perspective – wherein people are treated as uniquely rational decision-makers – and introduce the very real social contexts through which they negotiate and understand their role within the energy system; with specific focus on their views on the energy technologies that comprise it. The underlying feelings, assumptions, associations and values held by the people who express them are very real influencing factors on the energy-related practices they engage in on a day-to- day basis. Subsequently, a report will be produced synthesising these two intersectional analyses along with a range of socio-economic, technical, market and policy analyses from the ENTRUST project. It is intended that this report will be updated over the remaining duration of the project, based on ongoing dialogue with the communities; continued reflexive analysis of the collected data; and insights from complementary outputs (not least those mentioned above) with an updated report envisaged for release in quarter one, 2018. The report is laid out into sections, with each one addressing a specific aspect of the work involved to produce this deliverable. The first part, Section 1 offers an overview of the study, exploring the background and context to the report and presenting is aims and objectives. Section 2 presents the philosophical and theoretical framework that underpins the research and examines how behaviours and practices intersect, especially in relation to energy-related practices. An important contribution to this approach has been the applying the key concept of ‘intersectionality’ that has helped move the research beyond the “single-axis analysis” taken elsewhere. Section 3 provides an overview of the methods used in the fieldwork and subsequent data analysis. Section 4 presents a reflexive account of the respective knowledges and understandings of the six case-study communities from ethnographic material generated from the research team’s engagements with the communities. Section 5 presents the findings of the research, collating them within key, overarching themes that emerged from our community engagements, and explores their meaning within the context of the overall research aims and objectives for this deliverable. The final part, Section 6 concludes the report with an overview of those key findings and how they can, as this research suggests, manifest into the energy-related practices seen in the six communities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».