Review Essay. Energy landscape research – Lessons from Southern Europe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Moravian Geographical Reports does not often publish Book Reviews (let alone essays), but this new book on “Renewable Energies and European Landscapes” 1 is a well-deserved exception to the rule! It is an edited collection of essays gathered together by Frolova (University of Granada, Spain), Prados (University of Sevilla, Spain) and Nadaï (Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement: CIRED -CNRS, France), based on a series of Workshops organised under the auspices of several agencies (from both Spain and France) in the period from 2007 to the present. In particular, the Spanish Network on Renewable Energies and Landscape (RESERP) began in 2010, with an emphasis on wind and solar power. Published by a well-respected agency, the question can be clearly stated at the outset: Do the editors fulfil their ambitious agenda of providing case studies of value for the emerging research on landscapes of renewable energies of Europe, writ large, i.e. beyond the ‘Southern European’ environment? Or: what is the ‘added value’ of the Southern European cases?
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".