From the development of an open-source energy modelling tool to its application and the creation of communities of practice: The example of OSeMOSYS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decades, energy modelling has supported energy planning by offering insights into the dynamics between energy access, resource use, and sustainable development. Especially in recent years, there has been an attempt to strengthen the science-policy interface and increase the involvement of society in energy planning processes. This has, both in the EU and worldwide, led to the development of open-source and transparent energy modelling practices. This paper describes the role of an open-source energy modelling tool in the energy planning process and highlights its importance for society. Specifically, it describes the existence and characteristics of the relationship between developing an open-source, freely available tool and its application, dissemination and use for policy making. Using the example of the Open Source energy Modelling System (OSeMOSYS), this work focuses on practices that were established within the community and that made the framework's development and application both relevant and scientifically grounded.
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 | 0.041 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".