Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the heads of state or government of the EU member states met in the Palace of Versailles to consider a historic decision to end EU dependency on Russian gas, oil and coal imports. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia had announced energy embargos on Russia, and many expected the EU to follow suit, but this was not possible due to the complex decision-making in the EU. Instead, what was agreed was the REPowerEU Plan, setting out the European Commission's strategy of diversifying gas supplies, switching to renewables and hydrogen, improving energy efficiency, and mitigating the impact of rising energy prices. The Plan attempts to fit into the broader context of the Paris Agreement, the EU Green Deal, the EU's ‘Fit for 55’ framework and the EU law for climate neutrality. The gravity of the current situation is illustrated by the arrangements being put in place to prepare for a complete cut-off of Russian gas exports and by restarting the burning of coal, an energy source that Europe had recently consigned to history. This paper reviews the REPowerEU Plan and recent key proposals in the electricity and gas sectors from a policy and legal perspective. It is structured in three parts corresponding to the familiar notion of the energy trilemma: affordability, security and sustainability. REPowerEU is about rapidly reducing dependency on Russian fossil fuels by fast forwarding the clean transition to deliver affordable, secure and sustainable energy. Its goals might initially suggest that a new energy theorem is being launched, but this paper will argue that, in the EU context at least, the classic energy trilemma persists, and indeed is more acute in its effects than ever before.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".