MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389266089 · doi:10.1080/10301763.2023.2289097

Renewable energy and the promise of jobs, regional regeneration and first nations opportunities

2023· article· en· W4389266089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Al Rainnie, Darryn Snell

Bibliographic record

VenueLabour & Industry a journal of the social and economic relations of work · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyOffshore wind powerFutures contractFossil fuelBusinessWork (physics)Natural resource economicsWind powerSubmarine pipelineEconomic geographyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon-exposed regions tied to the fossil-fuel industry have uncertain futures. The promise of regional regeneration and job stimulus through a transition to renewable energy has been presented by governments, environmental organisations and some unions as a viable solution to their dilemmas. In this paper, we critically evaluate the job generation and local development possibilities from two high profile renewable energy initiatives – offshore wind farms and hydrogen hubs. Our starting point is that the debate to date has tended to be very narrowly focused on ‘employment estimates for renewable versus fossil fuel industries’ without consideration of where these jobs will be located and the nature of these jobs. Adopting a case study method, we consider the development of offshore wind farms and hydrogen hubs in Australia and their location within global value chains (GVCs) and the temporal and spatial dimensions of work required for developing, operating and maintaining these emerging industries. We demonstrate how the low labour intensity of ongoing work in offshore wind and hydrogen hubs means that new jobs created are mostly in short bursts of temporary labour in project construction.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLabour & Industry a journal of the social and economic relations of workSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207