Energy Poor No More: Intelligent Approaches to Realizing Energy Well-Being
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
Access to clean, affordable, and reliable energy services is a key requirement for global sustainability. The United Nations reports that 91% of the world’s population had access to electricity in 2021, up from 87% in 2015 (<uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal7#progress_and_info</uri>). However, grid connection does not guarantee energy well-being, which New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment defines as the situation “when individuals, households, and whanau are able to obtain adequate energy services to support their well-being in their home or kainga” (<uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-hardship/defining-energy-hardship/</uri>). When a household is unable to meet its energy needs, either because it does not have access to a reliable energy supply or cannot afford the necessary energy services, it suffers from energy hardship or, in the extreme, energy poverty. Our research addresses the latter situation; that is, when energy hardship exists despite a reliable energy supply.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it