Wandering identities in energy transition discourses: Political leaders’ use of the “we” pronoun in Ontario, 2009–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the use of universalizing language as a discursive strategy to promote shifts in energy policy. Building on scholarship that seeks to understand the political nature of energy transitions, including resistance to transitions, the role of the state, and implications for justice, we examine three phases of energy transition in Ontario in the period 2009–2019, focusing on the ways that three successive ruling coalitions used the first plural pronoun “we” to promote contrasting energy policy orientations. Our analysis of policy documents and government news releases confirms that all three coalitions used the “we” form as a strategic device to define priorities, prescribe courses of action, and broadcast achievements. However, they also used the ambiguity of the “we” form to obscure alternative perspectives, claim credit for rivals’ accomplishments, and gloss over harmful and differentiated impacts of policy choices. The paper concludes by reflecting on broader questions about power and justice relevant to energy transition scholars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".