Community energy justice: A review of origins, convergence, and a research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition to zero‑carbon sustainable energy systems is critical and must take an equity-oriented approach to avoid exacerbating societal injustices. We explore the concept of “community” and its potential as a viable and effective tool for studying, understanding, and fostering justice and equity in energy transitions. This paper outlines community energy justice as an area of scholarship emerging through convergence around three key concepts: community, energy transition, and justice. Using a narrative literature review approach, we unpack the origins of community energy justice research, rooted in two scholarship pillars of energy justice and community energy. We outline four driving forces and two key approaches leading to convergence between both areas of scholarship. Encompassing energy transition initiatives that incorporate both justice and community themes, we find that the overarching objective of community energy justice is to advance distributive, recognition and procedural justice in energy systems while upholding the agency, capability, and political power of community groups. These communities may transcend place-based conceptualizations to capture more expansive notions of community such as identity, process, and more. By grounding energy justice research in community-centred approaches, lenses, and case studies, community energy justice research is exploring whether and how leveraging the interrelationships among community members might result in more effective and equitable energy outcomes. We provide insights helpful for policymakers and civic actors developing community energy justice initiatives. We also highlight further research opportunities including the examination of broader social justice linkages, identifying barriers, exploring mechanisms, expanded geographies, strategic evaluations, and understanding actor motivations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".