Energy's Struggle with Rapidly Changing Roles, Responsibilities, and Reputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guest editorial Almost every aspect of modern society is supported or influenced by energy—and yet it is one of the least understood and possibly one of the most reviled industries on the planet. Whether we like it or not, the energy sector’s public image has been shaped over the past couple of generations to be synonymous with corporate profiteering, environmental disregard, and social abstinence. It is hard for those of us who work in this industry to rationalize such a reputation when we know that our collective programs on safety, the environment, corporate social responsibility, and technology innovation are among the best to be found in any sector. This is the energy paradox, and in the face of an ever-growing and daunting demand for energy, it is apparent that the industry’s relationship with society has to change. But is it one that we can tackle on our own? Changes at Scale Nowhere is the energy paradox more evident than with the shale revolution in the United States. In just a few years, the industry has moved from initial experimentation to drilling almost 40,000 wells per year—changing employment and prosperity in many parts of the country, creating the potential for energy independence, and disrupting long-standing equilibria in the geopolitical landscape. In addition to this direct impact, the promise of sustained, accessible, and affordable energy is becoming a powerful economic multiplier, with an increasing number of new manufacturing plants replacing coal with natural gas, resulting in a marked impact on the reduction of carbon emissions. The sheer scale of this activity, though, is stressing domestic infrastructure beyond design, overloading pipelines, roadways, and rail networks. More and more, these activities are expanding into private land and creating new engagements among companies that represent our industry and stakeholders in communities, local governments, and states. It remains to be seen to what degree these constituents are willing to deal with what is, in effect, the reindustrialization of the United States when it is in their own backyards. Energy as a Foreign Language We do have some strong indications that people are taking notice. Shale development today dominates the conversations and activities of a myriad of special interest groups, trade organizations, and government and community initiatives as well as industry forums. However, with more than 10,000 E&P companies working in this space in the United States alone, all of these activities, while important in their own right, are extremely fragmented and very few represent more than a few stakeholders. It is at the interfaces among all these groups that the energy paradox is most obvious. The industry, mostly well intentioned, has typically developed messages that are too often meant to “teach” other groups about the “facts” of shale development. But these messages can be perceived as arrogant, condescending, and uncaring by stakeholders who have other, just as well-intentioned, viewpoints.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".