MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964201644 · doi:10.26190/unsworks/18473

Lost in transition: competing discourses and Australia's energy future

2015· dissertation· en· W6964201644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Climate Change Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Field (mathematics)Energy (signal processing)PopulationWork (physics)Energy policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis critically examines Australia’s efforts to transform its electricity regime along ecologically sustainable lines. To carry out this analysis, it traces the evolution of climate and energy policy at national, State and local levels through primary interviews and secondary documentary analysis since the emergence of the Toronto Target in 1988. Drawing on insights from the sustainability transitions literature and combining this with a neo-Gramscian perspective, this thesis exposes and deepens our understanding of the power relations that enable and constrain sustainability energy transitions. To date, Australia has made little progress toward ‘greening’ its electricity regime. Nevertheless, analysis of Australia’s sustainability energy transition narrative reveals significant patterns in climate and energy discourse and policy formation. Over the last 25 years configurations of material, institutional and discursive forces have led to moments of policy innovation, which, particularly from 2007 onwards, have shifted the policy landscape. The first formal attempt by the Federal government to introduce an emissions trading scheme (2008 to 2010) offered a new path for energy futures. Ultimately this effort was defeated with relative ease, exposing the contingent nature of sustainability energy transitions in Australia. The second attempt, which sought to introduce a carbon tax (2010 to 2013), proved more successful. A minority Labor government - provoked and supported by the Greens - developed a new and important overarching institutional structure, paving the way for significant reforms. These breakthroughs notwithstanding, institutionalising a sustainability energy transition has proven extremely challenging. This thesis finds that climate policy and energy policy in Australia have been dissociated from one another. This failure of policy coordination and integration is reflected in the diverging goals and paths of each policy domain, and is caused in part by attempts to reconcile competing neoliberal and weak ecological modernisation discourses. This clash, played out within the policy domain through key institutions, actors, and special interests, has led to a range of ad hoc and often contradictory policy pathways. The inability of Australian governments to define and articulate a coherent narrative around a sustainable energy future has constrained Australia’s progress towards electricity decarbonisation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it