Whither policy innovation? Mapping conceptual engagement with public policy in energy transitions research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A transition to sustainable energy will require not only technological diffusion and behavioral change, but also policy innovation. While research on energy transitions has generated an extensive literature, the extent to which it has used the policy innovation perspective – entailing policy entrepreneurship or invention, policy diffusion, and policy success – remains unclear. This study analyzes over 8000 publications on energy transitions through a bibliometric review and computational text analysis to create an overview of the scholarship, map conceptual engagement with public policy, and identify the use of the policy innovation lens in the literature. We find that: (i) though the importance of public policy is frequently highlighted in the research, the public policy itself is analyzed only occasionally; (ii) studies focusing on public policy have primarily engaged with the concepts of policy mixes, policy change, and policy process; and (iii) the notions of policy entrepreneurship or invention, policy diffusion, and policy success are hardly employed to understand the sources, speed, spread, or successes of energy transitions. We conclude that the value of the policy innovation lens for energy transitions research remains untapped and propose avenues for scholars to harness this potential.
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 | 0.048 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.097 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".