Using energy vulnerability framework to understand household agency in sustainability transitions: Experiences from Canada and Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Vulnerability framework diversifies understanding of household agency. • Exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity highlight contextual issues. • Cases in Canada and Finland reveal different dynamics of vulnerability. • Neither case country has given systematic attention to energy poverty. • Proactive household agency overcomes adversities of transition policies. Sustainability transitions research is increasingly engaged with the complexities of justice and equitability. In housing, policy lock-ins and infrastructural inequalities expose people to volatile energy markets, energy poverty and climate impacts. These problems have often been dealt with reactively, without resolving their underlying systemic and structural causes. We examine household energy vulnerabilities, their exposure and sensitivity to certain risks, and what their adaptive capacity is in navigating those. Based on qualitative case studies of social housing in Canada and housing cooperatives in Finland, we show that interconnected exposures and sensitivities to risks are contextual. This can lead to energy vulnerability, further triggered by changes in policies, energy markets and the environment. In Canada, neglected housing maintenance causes exposure, while in Finland, policy utilizing bottom-up action does not always strengthen household agency, especially for vulnerable households. We call for more empirical studies on household energy vulnerability in different contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".