Advancing the concept of windows of opportunity to explore the dynamics of the sustainability transition: The development of the EV market in the UK
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
Abstract In this study, we seek to understand the interplay between industry and policy, to explain how and why the UK shifted from the promotion of low‐emission road transportation, to policy based on zero tailpipe‐emission electric vehicles (EVs), as part of its evolving net zero ambitions. For this, we unify the Multi‐Level Perspective, Multiple Streams Framework, and Multi‐Level Governance into a synthetic model—the Multi‐Level Governance and Strategy model. Within this, we identify distinct windows of opportunity (WoO) that relate to each of the technology, policy, and market factors that needed to come together to put the UK automotive industry on a specific trajectory. Utilizing (pragmatist) grounded theory to analyze our extensive interview and documentary data, we find that this trajectory resulted from the interplay of technology innovators and policy entrepreneurs in different WoO, to achieve the ultimate goal of a functioning market for EVs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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