MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122624715 · doi:10.1111/gec3.12554

Approaches to energy transitions: Carbon pricing, managed decline, and/or green new deal?

2021· article· en· W3122624715 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamAppealEnergy transitionClimate justiceGlobePoliticsNeutralityCarbon neutralityEnergy (signal processing)EconomicsClimate changePolitical economyPolitical scienceNatural resource economicsBusinessGreenhouse gasLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The need for wholescale energy transitions across the globe is now clear, but there is still much debate about how best to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Carbon‐pricing has so far been unable to avert the coming climate catastrophe. Instead supply‐side, managed decline of the fossil fuel sector and proposals for Green New Deals, or Just Transition are gaining steam among academics, policy communities, and movements and even entering mainstream politics. In this article, I review three main approaches to energy transition and highlight their underlying goals and assumptions. I argue that movements for energy transition must center social and economic justice in their struggles if they want to gain broad‐based appeal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.170 · 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