Positive energy district stakeholder perceptions and measures for energy vulnerability mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
100 Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) are to be created in Europe by 2025, with a stated goal of urban decarbonization. These are highly energy efficient residential urban areas, powered entirely through renewables. PED creation is to be guided by principles of quality of life, sustainability, and inclusiveness (specifically focusing on affordability and energy poverty prevention). Although there is research into the decarbonization aspects of PEDs, there has been little focus on the guiding principles, and their potential to reduce energy vulnerability. Using energy vulnerability factors and an energy justice framework, this article examines how the topic of energy vulnerability mitigation is perceived by professional PED stakeholders. Stakeholders from multiple countries were interviewed in order to determine how and to what extent they approached the topic of inclusivity and energy vulnerability. The contribution of this paper to academic research is in helping to frame energy vulnerability in European smart city urban areas, focusing on the perceptions of key stakeholders. This contributes to research on the identification and evaluation of innovations such as PEDs which offer a potential model for an inclusive transition. Furthermore, this article offers a contribution for policymakers, informing PED replication policies with a focus on the synergistic aims of decarbonization and energy vulnerability mitigation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".