Towards the development of legislative framework for solar neighborhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing implementation of sustainable urban infrastructure, utilizing solar energy for heat and power generation, daylighting, and thermal comfort, has intensified the focus on sustainability standards and guidelines. Nevertheless, a noticeable deficiency persists in regulations that specifically address solar energy access and protection, posing a barrier to the diffusion of solar-centric neighborhoods. This paper examines the traditional urban regulatory frameworks and the state of solar energy regulations and practices within five countries (i.e., Canada, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland). The aim of the study is to (i) identify gaps in existing regulations, standards, and codes, (ii) highlight the need for future regulations to protect solar access and rights, and (iii) support the deployment of solar technologies on a large scale. The results underline that climate-related regulations often fall short of specificity tailored to regional and local climates, relying on generalized climate considerations. Solar energy legislation is generally scarce and lacks comprehensive planning. Finally, despite various financial incentives for the installation of active solar strategies, their impact remains limited, impeding the wide spread of solar technology as a primary source of energy production in urban environment.
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 | 0.046 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".