Critical Review on Community-Shared Solar—Advantages, Challenges, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few years, many innovative solutions have been presented to address the climate change crisis. One of the innovative solutions is the participation of community members in the collective production of solar electricity instead of individual production. The current study aims to provide a critical literature review of the collective production of solar electricity, which is called “community-shared solar” (CSS). Sixty-seven peer-reviewed publications were selected based on the setting up of a combination of related keywords. To analyze the concept of CSS in the existing literature, a multi-level perspective (MLP) framework was used to observe the CSS innovation at the niche, regime, and landscape levels. Four aspects, including the technical, economic, socio-political, and regulatory and institutional, were considered to evaluate those three levels. The results revealed that in the technical and economic aspects, CSS has reached maturity and internal momentum that can take it to the next levels. However, a lack of attention to the socio-political aspect and the regulatory and institutional aspect, in particular, is the potential barrier to the emergence of CSS and its potential position as a leading energy system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".