Establishing an agenda for social studies research in marine renewable energy
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
To date, academic research relating to Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) has largely focused on resource assessment, technical viability and environmental impact. Experiences from onshore renewable energy tell us that social acceptability is equally critical to project success. However, the specific nature of the marine environment, patterns of resource distribution and governance means experiences from onshore may not be directly applicable to MRE and the marine environment. This paper sets out an agenda for social studies research linked to MRE, identifying key topics for future research: (i) economic impacts; (ii) wealth distribution and community benefits; (iii) communication and knowledge flow; (iv) consultation processes; (v) dealing with uncertainty; (vi) public attitudes; and (vii) planning processes. This agenda is based on the findings of the first workshop of ISSMER, an international research network of social scientists with interests in marine renewable energy. Importantly, this research agenda has been informed by the experiences of developers, regulators and community groups in Orkney. The Orkney archipelago, off the north coast of Scotland, is home to the most intense cluster of MRE research, development and deployment activity in the world today.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it