Renewable energy and well-being in remote Indigenous communities of Canada: A panel analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy transitions in Indigenous, Northern and remote communities in Canada promise benefits that go beyond reliable, clean and affordable energy services. The Federal and Provincial governments have committed funding to get remote communities off diesel, acknowledging energy transitions' global and local benefits. Besides climate change mitigation, other benefits, including job creation, income generation, community ownership and local economic growth, are fundamental components of the value proposition of renewable energy projects. However, despite the promises, little evidence of the impacts of renewable energy on communities' local conditions exists. This article looks at the relationship between renewable energy projects and community well-being in Canada. We construct a panel of Indigenous communities and well-being levels using Census data and information about renewable energy projects for the period 1981–2016. The findings suggest that renewable energy is associated with higher levels of well-being. Concretely, having access to renewable energy increases overall well-being by 1 to 5 points on the 0–100 well-being scale, depending on the component of the well-being index considered in the analysis.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it