Energy democracy: Goals and policy instruments for sociotechnical transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy democracy is an emergent social movement advancing renewable energy transitions by resisting the fossil-fuel-dominant energy agenda while reclaiming and democratically restructuring energy regimes. By integrating technological change with the potential for socioeconomic and political change, the movement links social justice and equity with energy innovation. Through a policy mix lens, this research examines the energy democracy agenda in the United States to understand how and to what extent the mix of policy instruments currently proposed among energy democracy advocates corresponds to the overarching goals of the movement. This assessment compares 22 policy instruments to 26 intended outcomes for energy democracy. The mix of policy instruments holds potential for advancing renewable energy transitions based on the combined goals of resist-reclaim-restructure, although current policies relate unevenly across the set of intended outcomes. Bolstering the energy democracy agenda will likely require developing new policies, strengthening existing policies, and integrating efforts to simultaneously resist dominant energy systems while also supporting their democratic and inclusive replacement. This research increases the visibility of the energy democracy movement and clarifies and assesses the core claims and policy instruments advanced by its advocates, contributing to policy design for renewable energy transitions and energy democracy.
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 | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".