MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903701913 · doi:10.3138/cjh.ach.53.3.03

The Historical Transition from Coal to Hydrocarbons: Previous Explanations and the Need for an Integrative Perspective

2018· article· en· W2903701913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Odinn Melsted, Irene Pallua

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalEnergy transitionContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)Natural resource economicsElectricityPerspective (graphical)Fossil fuelConsumption (sociology)Energy supplyEnvironmental economicsEnergy (signal processing)EconomyEconomicsEngineeringWaste managementGeologyComputer scienceChemistrySociologyPaleontologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with the historical transition from coal to oil and natural gas, commonly referred to as hydrocarbons. This transition occurred throughout the industrialized world between the 1940s and 1970s, yet the causes for the shift from coal to hydrocarbons are only marginally understood. Drawing from recent research on historical energy transitions, we examine the takeover of hydrocarbons in the context of the incumbent coal configurations. Building on previous explanations, we identify two analytical perspectives: (1) the view on the overall energy supply system that diversified when hydrocarbons were introduced, and (2) that on the consumers of energy, who replaced coal with hydrocarbon alternatives. The central argument is that the two perspectives need to be integrated to fully understand why hydrocarbons could replace coal. This monumental change in energy history was no simple shift in fuels, but a complex transition that occurred at (1) the level of energy supply, where hydrocarbons became available as alternatives to coal, and (2) the level of energy consumption, where consumers in the areas of railway and maritime transportation, residential heating, industrial production, and electricity generation actively decided to use hydrocarbon alternatives as substitutions for coal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.037
Scholarly communication0.0100.022
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207