Increasing the reliability of energy system scenarios with integrated modelling: a review
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
Abstract Systems models are an important tool for policy and energy planning decisions. These models generally fall into one of three modelling paradigms: energy economy, capacity expansion or power sector planning. Recent work seeks to combine these paradigms into an integrated framework to leverage the benefits of different model types. There is also interest and research in representing more system interactions to expand the modelling nexus. However, this increases model complexity and risks creating more black box models that are not well understood or trusted by users or policymakers. To understand the trade-offs and best practices of using combined models, we review current modelling practices, including an overview of the different modelling paradigms in the literature, how combined modelling has been applied to date and how the nexus has been represented in different modelling applications. Building on the literature review, we held a series of expert elicitation workshops to gain insight from energy modelling domain experts who use combined models. Finally, we encapsulate these findings and best practices into a modelling evaluation framework. We find that while there is interest and research being done in these areas, there are no set standards for how to build these types of models, resulting in a wide range of practices. Increasing model complexity to develop fully hard-linked coupled models that are also trustworthy and transparent generally requires more time and resources than is worthwhile. Instead, the focus should be on avoiding black box models by having a clear modelling purpose and developing best practices that allow for clarity and transparency. Expanding the nexus to include attributes such as biodiversity and cultural security presents a challenge and representing them as a cost is not congruent to equitable policy. These aspects could be better incorporated into analysis using stakeholder debate and citizens’ assemblies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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