The rapid diffusion of demand-side low-carbon innovations has been identified as a key strategy for maintaining average global temperature rise at or below 1.5 °C. Diffusion research tends to focus on a single sector, or single technology case study, and on a small scope of factors that influence innovation diffusion. This paper describes a novel methodology for identifying multiple demand-side innovations within a specific energy system context and for characterizing their impact on socio-technical energy systems. This research employs several theoretical frameworks that include the Energy Technology Innovation System (ETIS) framework to develop a sample of innovations; the Sustainability Transitions framework to code innovations for their potential to impact the socio-technical system; the energy justice framework to identify the potential of innovations to address aspects of justice; and how characteristics of innovations are relevant to Innovation Adoption. This coding and conceptualization creates the foundation for the future development of quantitative models to empirically assess and quantify the rate of low-carbon innovation diffusion as well as understanding the broader relationship between the diffusion of innovations and socio-technical system change. The three stages of research are: Contextualization: surveys and desk research to identify low-carbon innovations across the ETIS; Decontextualization: the development of a codebook of variables Recontextualization: coding the innovations and analysis.

The diffusion of low-carbon innovations, including innovative products and services, is required to accelerate a low-carbon energy transition. These innovations also have the potential to alleviate and perpetuate existing social inequities, calling into question their “justness.” Energy justice is a useful analytical tool for framing justice questions related to energy. In this paper, we ask whether demand-side low-carbon energy innovations are meeting energy justice criteria. To address this question, this study develops four indicators from existing energy justice frameworks and applies them to a range of demand-side innovations offered to energy users in Ontario. The indicators are used to assess innovation availability, affordability, information, and involvement. Innovations were identified using surveys and desk research across Ontario's energy technology innovation system (ETIS). One hundred twenty-two innovations are analyzed for these four indicators, and according to intended innovation users and innovation providers. Findings suggest that three of the four indicators—availability, affordability and information are broadly being addressed, while involvement was more difficult to establish. However, the ETIS may be perpetuating inequities through an over emphasis of innovations for particular energy users, such as private businesses, alongside under-emphasis on potentially marginalized actors, such as low-income households and renters. Furthermore, government-delivered, publicly owned or regulated innovation providers place a greater emphasis on energy justice, including the provision of innovations for marginalized actors. This study aids our understanding of energy justice in low-carbon energy innovations and is critical given that in the context of funding cuts to public services, there may be an increased reliance on decentralized actors. The consideration of justice gaps that emerge through such decentralization should not be overlooked. Our findings suggest that within Ontario's ETIS, who provides innovations matters. Given the insights presented in this study, this research approach and the developed indicators could be applied to other contexts and socio-technical systems. The application of energy justice indicators, derived from existing scholarship, therefore presents an important opportunity to address current and understudied practical energy challenges.

Background: First-episode schizophrenia (FES) and anti-NMDAR encephalitis are different disorders with similar psychiatric symptoms, and both diseases are associated with the inflammatory system. In this study, we compared hematological parameters and inflammation ratios in anti-NMDAR encephalitis, FES, and healthy control.Methods: We enrolled 106 patients (53 FES patients and 53 anti-NMDAR encephalitis patients) and 59 healthy controls. The values of the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet–lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte–lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) were used to evaluate inflammation. Other parameters such as the white blood cell (WBC), platelet (PLT), uric acid (UA), total bilirubin (TBIL), total bile acid (TBA), and serum albumin counts were also used to compare inflammation ratios between these two diseases.Results: SII, NLR, PLR, MLR, and serum albumin levels were statistically significantly different between these three groups (p < 0.05). The values of SII, NLR, PLR, and MLR were significantly higher in the anti-NMDAR encephalitis group than those in the FES group (p < 0.05), and the values in both diseases were more increased than those in HC (p < 0.05). The serum albumin level was significantly lower in anti-NMDAR encephalitis than in FES (p < 0.05). WBC, neutrophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte counts showed significantly higher levels in the anti-NMDAR encephalitis group and FES group separately (p < 0.05). Other parameters like TBA, TBIL, and UA showed no difference between groups.Conclusion: In summary, this is a relatively new study that is innovative by comparing some inflammation markers of peripheral blood in two diseases with clinically psychotic symptoms. These two diseases are related to the inflammatory system, proving that NMDAR dysfunction is related to psychotic symptoms. Besides, NLR, PLR, MLR, and serum albumin can be used as biomarkers to distinguish the two diseases. The serum albumin level in patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis was lower than that in patients with schizophrenia.

No abstract