From Benefits to Value(s): Biogas Systems Valuation Practices from a Swedish Regional Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local and regional contexts are essential spaces to promote sustainable energy transitions. Within this space, biogas production and use are one choice considered part of a regional sustainable transition. The valuation of different options has become a recurrent and vital activity in connection with strategic energy decisions in the public sector. However, capturing the diverse benefits of biogas is challenging. This study scrutinises the socially and politically bounded practice that (re)produces value(s) by examining the valuation practices related to biogas performed by regional and national actors in Sweden. It finds that although the valuation practice has a degree of formality, it still reflects local needs and specific contexts. A wide range of benefits undergoes a translation process to produce value(s) using qualitative and quantitative rationalities. Still, there is tension between the desire to prioritise quantitative methods while at the same time acknowledging that some benefits are too difficult to quantify. This paper contributes to the literature on the valuation of non-market objects by highlighting the connections between established scientific and economic procedures and performative processes and the importance of rejecting a binary view of quantification and qualification.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".