Advancing participatory energy systems modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy system models are important tools to guide our understanding of current and future carbon dioxide emissions as well as to inform strategies for emissions reduction. These models offer a vital evidence base that increasingly underpins energy and climate policies in many countries. In light of this important role in policy formation, there is growing interest in, and demands for, energy modellers to integrate more diverse perspectives on possible and preferred futures into the modelling process. The main purpose of this is to ensure that the resultant policy decisions are both fairer and better reflect people's concerns and preferences. However, while there has been a focus in the literature on efforts to bring societal dimensions into modelling tools, there remains a limited number of examples of well-structured participatory energy systems modelling processes and no available how-to guidance. This paper addresses this gap by providing good practice guidance for integrating stakeholder and public involvement in energy systems modelling based on the reflections of a diverse range of experts from this emergent field. The framework outlined in this paper offers multiple entry points for modellers to incorporate participatory elements either throughout the process or in individual stages. Recognising the messiness of both fields (energy systems modelling and participatory research), the good practice principles are not comprehensive or set in stone, but rather pose important questions to steer this process. Finally, the reflections on key issues provide a summary of the crucial challenges and important areas for future research in this critical field.
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 | 0.109 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".