Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transforming the energy system towards an increasing share of renewables requires a significant change of a policy to redirect the path-dependent evolution of a highly complex technical system. Moreover, a new path of development towards energy provision from renewables has to be stabilized to assure sustainability. The federal systems in Canada and Germany diverge in the institutional conditions relevant for policy change and stability. Canadian federalism separates powers in energy policy and allows the federal and provincial governments to change policies on their own. In contrast, German federalism requires co-operation between federal and Länder governments which favors policy stability but renders significant change unlikely. However, energy transformation started in the 1990s in Germany under conditions that allowed the federal government to avoid the usual mode of joint decision-making. In Canada, provincial governments took the lead in energy transformation, when the conservative federal government showed no interest in intergovernmental coordination. The article explains these shifts in power within the institutional framework. It also discusses the consequences, considering the stability of transformative energy policy. In Germany, policy change from the center undermined the stabilizing structures of intergovernmental coordination, in Canada, institutional conditions favoring continuity never existed. Hence in both countries, governments changed policies but failed to reform institutions of governance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".