Solar-Powered Community Art Workshops for Energy Justice: New Directions for the Public Humanities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the energy and environmental humanities stress, the low-carbon transition will require cultural change as well as technological solutions. Yet, in assessing ideas and directions to this end, humanistic scholars often exclusively consider the works of professional artists and writers, ignoring a deeper consideration of how laypeople reason through renewable energy technologies and energy poetics. This article provides an alternative approach, mobilizing community art workshops as a method to explore how diverse publics experience and think with solar photovoltaic (PV) energy in two small Canadian cities: Peterborough and Corner Brook. Integrating arts-based practices with qualitative social science methods and humanistic formal analysis, we assess how participants’ experiential learning and aesthetic experiments with solar power express and inform their opinions about energy transition. Our findings show that place-based and affective forms of reasoning are evident in participants’ solar art practices, emphasizing the importance of play, place, problem-solving, and participation for climate action. We further offer this format as a way to do public environmental humanities work that blurs the distinction among research, service, and teaching, while avoiding prescriptive or hierarchical approaches to cultural dissemination or energy transitions.
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 | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 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".