The (non)-Effects of Public Experiments on High-Level Radioactive Waste Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Siting processes of high-level radioactive wastes remain a sensitive step for nuclear waste management organizations. At this stage, radioactive wastes programs become highly visible. Such concreteness increases controversies leading to modification or temporary standstill of the program (see e.g. strong local oppositions in the 80’s in Canada and in France). These controversies have often forced nuclear waste management organizations to include larger societal groups (civil society, NGO’s, parliamentarians, lay people,…) and to recognize the societal dimension of such issue. The program is thus recognized as a sociotechnical one, compelling authorities to a new approach to territorial development (Leloup 2010). At the local scale, new instruments and strategies have been adopted and implemented to tackle this territorial question. One of these tools is the local information committee. Considering nuclear waste management as an art of government (Dean, 2010), this presentation focuses on the siting processes of radioactive wastes programs and analyzes the coproduction between territory and program (Jasanoff 2004). It therefore studies the influence on the programs of the local publics through their local information committee in two specific cases: the French and the Canadian high-level radioactive wastes programs. To do so, it mobilizes official documents, participatory observations, two ethnographic fieldworks (Bure – France and Manitouwadge, Ignace, Schreiber and Nipigon – Canada), and semi-structured interviews. These interviews were conducted with French and Canadian nuclear waste management organizations’ member, regulators, local representatives and local consultation committee’s members. In analyzing such siting processes, we first analytically describe the shift from a national radioactive waste management program to a territorialized management in France and in Canada. Second, it aims at understanding the concrete and sometimes unanticipated effects of implementing a management program at the local level by focusing on the integration of local publics and stakeholders in the decision-making of such processes. Finally, it discusses the dual relationship between program and territory in these processes. Our results highlight that the territorial development of the high-level radioactive wastes programs started within R&D programs although the program was officially presented as “placeless” (Murphy 2009). They also show that the siting processes have been designed very differently. In Canada, the siting process has been co-designed with publics while the French national Parliament has imposed a siting location for the industrial project. Third, through the (in)actions of such local committees considered as invited critics (Wynne 2007), new socio-technical adjustments has occurred in these programs. Even though, we stress that the dichotomy between expert-based and participatory is still pregnant (for different reasons) and reinforce the dichotomy between nature/experts/underground and society/publics/ground.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».