Energy Communities Overview: Managerial Policies, Economic Aspects, Technologies, and Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been an ongoing global debate on the issues of energy safety, energy autonomy, and energy alleviation policies in developed and developing countries. The energy communities can integrate distributed energy resources, especially among local energy systems, playing a decisive role to support people around the world in the transition process towards sustainable development and renewable energy sources (RES). The main research dimensions of such a manifold approach are environmental sustainability, the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission, the ordinal exploitation of RES, the social awareness in actions towards global consumerism in an environmentally caring manner, the increase of energy efficiency, and the pollution relief caused by the expansion of urban/built environment worldwide. This review study focused on the roles and the ways of how “energy communities” (ECs) could support contemporary energy management and priorities to ensure energy safety, autonomy, and alleviation, regionally and globally. In this context, a systematic, last-decade publications of ECs was conducted and the retrieved documents were organized in alignment with the following four groups of literature overview. Group 1 covered the dimensions of technology and environment, being coupled with Group 2, covering the dimensions of socio-culture and anthropocentricity (mainly focusing on the built environment). A similar coupling of Group 3 and Group 4 was made, where Group 3 covered the legislative dimension of ECs and Group 4 covered the ECs devoted to Europe–European Union (EU), respectively. The emerging key literature aspects, the proposed measures, and the applied energy policies on ECs were also conveyed and discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".