Social outcomes of energy use in the United Kingdom: Household energy footprints and their links to well-being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How energy relates to human need satisfaction, for whom, and with what wellbeing outcomes has remained under-researched. We address this gap by investigating the relationship between household energy footprint and well-being in the UK. Our results indicate that car and air transportation contributed the most to the total energy footprint of high-income and high-energy users. We find significant inequalities in the distribution of energy use and that the top energy users with high well-being are driving excess energy use. A more detailed analysis reveals that individuals with protected characteristics are particularly vulnerable to energy poverty and that their contribution to overall energy demand is negligible. We find that focusing on well-being steers the attention towards questions of sufficiency, overconsumption as well as the context within which we satisfy needs. Tackling the issues of energy poverty and inequalities are important for lowering energy demand and need to be addressed as a matter of climate justice.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it