The CEP Crosswalk: A community energy planning tool for interdepartmental alignment and stakeholder engagement
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community Energy Planning is a still-maturing practice that has great potential to help achieve climate goals, stimulate economic development, and realize health and social benefits. Community Energy Plans (CEPs) in Canada often encounter barriers to implementation that can be mitigated through use of decision support tools (QUEST, 2015). Planning tools are needed to help municipal staff improve the quality and quantity of stakeholder engagement during the CEP process, set priorities, and increase inter-departmental collaboration on climate and energy goals. In this paper, we present the Crosswalk Document, tool designed to support the Community Energy Planning process by identifying “points of contact” between the guiding policy documents of a given jurisdiction. We discuss the method used to construct the Crosswalk, and share insights from Community Energy practitioners at the Halifax Regional Municipality and the Town of Oakville who used it to the benefit their Community Energy Planning processes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it