MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360903116 · doi:10.1049/icp.2022.2744

Stakeholder engaged energy systems modelling: three Canadian case studies

2023· article· en· W4360903116 on OpenAlexaffabout
Madeleine McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Climate Change Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceStakeholderEnergy (signal processing)Systems engineeringEngineeringPhysicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meeting Canada's emission reduction targets requires a fundamental shift, not only in the infrastructure underpinning the supply and delivery of energy services, but also in the institutional frameworks that govern policy and investment decisions. Stakeholders' engagement in the energy transition is gaining momentum, but a communication gap between experts and decision makers is impeding the impact of model-based decarbonization analyses. This represents a substantial missed opportunity. We present three case studies that adopt a two-pronged strategy to co-create and co-deliver model-based insights. The first prong entails the development of an integrated energy modelling suite that provides a holistic perspective of energy systems that spans sectors, spatial-temporal scales, and energy vectors. The second prong entails a model implementation process, in which stakeholders and researchers co-develop 'Scenario Bundles' to analyze a particular project, policy, or target through a series of collaborative activities. We present three case studies, at the federal, inter-provincial and municipal scales respectively, that apply these two prongs in distinct stakeholder-driven modelling projects. We conclude with a critical analysis of the role of modelling and stakeholder engagement in effective decision making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.071 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceFrench-language works237,207