Who Makes or Breaks Energy Policymaking in the Caribbean Small Island Jurisdictions? A Study of Stakeholders’ Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While most studies view small island economies as a homogenous group with multiple similar vulnerabilities, few studies argue that they are a heterogenous group due to their political jurisdictions (independent versus dependent economies), with mostly environmental vulnerabilities in common. Departing from these two premises, our study is the first empirical attempt at examining inter-small island jurisdiction (SIJ) heterogeneity from the social construct perspective of stakeholders’ perceptions and within the context of environmental sustainability and energy policymaking. We quantitatively explore, across 34 Caribbean SIJs, multiple stakeholders’ perceptions of the influence of the electricity sector as a leader in environmental performance. The results show that when the governments of independent SIJs exclude electricity sector stakeholders and include other primary energy stakeholders in energy policymaking, the electricity sector actors are better perceived as leaders in environmental performance. In a global context where inclusiveness is important for sustainability, this finding suggests that within the systemic contexts of SIJs, stakeholders view the exclusion of powerful incumbent energy actors from policymaking as a viable approach for moving the environmental sustainability mandate forward. Our study has implications for policymakers and scholars on the democratic process of policymaking, and for practitioners in terms of building social trust.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".