Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to clarify the basic issues underlying the discussion of citizens' participation in public decision-making on energy policy and projects. It questions the assumption that such participation is possible, and recalls that energy policy is at present, at least in the French context, an area of conflict between government and various interest groups. It warns of possible misunderstandings due to the lack of an agreed definition of participation. Three major points are made in this connection. The first is that the usual instruments of citizens' participation in decision-making (public inquiries, parliamentary debates, etc.) have, for a number of technical and institutional reasons, become largely irrelevant as regards energy matters — as indeed in several other areas of policy. The second is that decision-making on energy policy and projects really allows for very little freedom of choice on the part of decision-makers : such freedom rarely goes beyond the setting of time-frames for the achievement of goals imposed by circumstances. Finally, it is suggested that invocation of the ideals of democracy is unhelpful : what is realistically possible amounts only to a greater openness and objectivity in decision-making processes aimed at giving citizens, not an illusory power to decide themselves or to block decisions by policy-makers, but the capacity to forewarn the latter about public feelings on energy issues.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".