Steering transformative energy efficiency and conservation in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis I assess the strength of efforts by the Government of British Columbia and BC Hydro to steer transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC) in BC’s built environment between 2005 and 2012. TEEC implies a level of energy savings that requires major changes over the next 10 to 40 years in not only the physical components of the built environment but also in day-to-day routines and patterns of life. An underlying assumption of the thesis is that in order to learn about, develop and implement the kinds of initiatives needed to achieve TEEC an accelerated system of policy and technology innovation is required. In carrying out my research, my particular focus was on assessing the influence of governance practices on efforts to achieve TEEC and on the outcomes that these practices lead to. To do this, I developed a theory-based evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of existing governance approaches to steer socio-technical transitions. The underlying premise of the theory is that a reflexive governance approach to steering transitions is more likely to lead to a stronger transition context which over time increases the likelihood of a transition being achieved. To this end, the thesis singled-out eight system conditions that I argue are needed to build and maintain the kind of momentum needed to realize long-term transformational change in complex socio-technical systems. These eight conditions were then used as the basis for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Province’s and BC Hydro’s efforts to steer TEEC. When I compared the strength of the transition conditions being created in each case study against the governance approach used, I found a link between the use of reflexive governance practices and stronger transition conditions. Based on this assessment 15 recommendations were advanced for how to improve the governance of TEEC in BC’s built environment. What is more, these findings suggest that any effort to pursue TEEC will need to also be accompanied by a shift to a more reflexive approach for steering transformational change.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".