MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399117430 · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114199

Community-based wind energy development does not work? Empirical evidence from residents in Canada and Ireland

2024· article· en· W4399117430 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jamie Baxter, Geraint Ellis, Sara E. Wilson, Benedict McAteer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWork (physics)Wind powerEnergy (signal processing)Renewable energyRegional scienceGeographyEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Positivity is no different for residents across wind energy development models. • Positivity is highly variable by case, requiring nuanced interpretation. • Distributive and procedural justice variables are significant, but inconsistent. • Aesthetics and links to climate change mitigation are the strongest predictors. • Community-based wind energy garners positivity when developer control is limited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy PolicySame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207