Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution and they continue to dominate our lives as we enter the twenty-first century. Yet there are clear signs that the grip they have on every sector of society must soon relax in favor of other energy sources. Such a transition will not come because we are running out of fossil fuels, but rather because the environmental and social costs of their rapid use threaten our very existence on the planet. This is an expected development. From the time when fossil fuels first enabled and magnified humans’ dominion over the earth, the costs they brought—as any good economist would argue—have been inseparable from their benefits. Although the benefits were explicit and the local costs were experienced by many, it was not until skilled writers such as Zola, Orwell, Llewellyn, and Dickens vividly portrayed them that their widespread and pernicious nature was broadcast to those outside their immediate reach. Nowadays the problems we are grappling with have spread to the global scale, including atmospheric warming, thinning ozone, and rising exposure to above-background radioactivity. Understanding earth–energy associations is a task well matched to the varied skills of geographers. The worth of such study is increasingly apparent as the world’s human population continues to rise, as fossil fuels become more difficult to wrest from the earth, and as we continue to realize that there will be no risk-free, cost-free, or impact-free rabbits coming out of the alternative energy hat. In this chapter, we review developments in energy geography in the US and Canada as posted to the literature since the first edition of Geography in America, including a sprinkling from overseas to provide context. Owing to the fundamental nature of energy, we have accordingly cast a wide net in our background research, albeit with some boundaries. For example, while we discuss several important contributions to energy research by physical and environmental geographers, we excluded consideration of such themes as energy budgets, most climate change research, and mine-land reclamation and radioactive waste transport studies by hydrologists and geomorphologists.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".