Energy system analytics and good governance -U4RIA goals of Energy Modelling for Policy Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Energy modelling is the process of using mathematical models to develop abstractions and then seek insights into future energy systems. It can be an abstract academic activity. Or, it can insert threads that influence our development. We argue therefore, that energy modelling that provides policy support (EMoPS) should not only be grounded in rigorous analytics, but also in good governance principles. As, together with other policy actions, it should be accountable. Almost all aspects of society and much of its impact on the environment are influenced by our use of energy. In this context, EMoPS can inspire, motivate, calibrate, and 'post assess' energy policy. But, such modeling is often undertaken by too few analysts under time and resource pressure. Building on the advances of 'class leaders', we propose that EMoPS should reach for practical goals — including engagement and accountability with the communities it involves, and those it will later affect. (We use the term Ubuntu, meaning 'I am because you are' to capture this interdependency). We argue that Ubuntu, together with retrievability, repeatability, reconstructability, interoperability and auditability (U4RIA) of EMoPS should be used to signal the beginnings of a new default practice. We demonstrate how the U4RIA principles can contribute in practice using recent modelling of aspirational energy futures by Costa Rica as a case study. This modelling effort includes community involvement and interfaces and integrates stakeholder involvement. It leaves a trail that allows for its auditing and accountability, while building capacity and sustainable institutional memory.
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 | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".