Just Energy Transition, Market Making and the Missed Affordances of Cleantech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A just transition entails decarbonization that is equitable across the energy lifecycle, integrating economic, social, and ecological justice. While its importance is widely recognized and efforts to operationalize it are growing, clean technology-enabled transitions often fall short of these ambitions. Emerging scholarship proposes non-negotiable minimum boundaries to evaluate whether transitions are genuinely “just.” Yet, the processes through which such boundaries are shaped remain underexplored. This paper develops theory on how intermediary-led market-making processes shape transition boundaries. We show that intermediaries’ efforts to broker the diverse affordances of clean technologies may restrict or expand the range of technological affordances realized in socio-technical transitions, leading to transition pathways that may be more or less just. We contribute to the literature on socio-technical transition by theorizing how the unobtrusive power of market intermediaries shapes transition processes. These insights invite further research into how intermediary practices can be reimagined to realize just 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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".