Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As an emerging technology, nanotechnology QrfT) is making rapid progress with respect to its commercial production, distribution, and marketing.Although nanoproducts are widely available in both Canada and South Korea, few studies have adequately explored the social implications of this new technology in either country or between countries with distinct cultural and societal differences.The current study is the first to compare public and expert attitudes regarding nanotechnology between North America and Asia.The objective of this thesis was to better understand how experl and public attitudes differ regarding science and technology and the possible human health and environmental risks associated with nanotechnology and nanoproducts.To accomplish this, interviews were conducted with the general public, university students, and nanotechnology experts from November, 2007 to May, 2008 in Canada and Korea to gauge risk perceptions around NT.Overall, most respondents from Canada and especially Korea (84% vs.94o/o)had heard of NT, but relatively few (24% vs.I6Yo) indicated they were knowledgeable of the technology.Yet the respondents, especially Koreans, were generally highly optimistic about the technology.Respondents were most excited about the potential of NT for improved human health, especially Canadians, followed by environmental benefits.Respondents from both countries sorted out into three groups: opponents that were highly critical of NT, proponents that were highly supportive, and a third group, conditional proponents that seemed to evaluate benef,rts against the potential risks before making any decision.Male public respondents from both countries were less likely to be critical than their female counterparts.Perceptions of NT s.H. oH, 2009 Of the 16 independent variables that shaped attitudes towards science and technology and implications for perceptions regarding NT, concerns of social impacts, the envirorunent, human health, and public input and trust in scientists, science, and technology were very imporlant.Expertise in NT, levels of formal education, academic specialization, gender, age, religion, marital status, and financial wellbeing were also meaningful.Regarding perceptions of health and environmental risks associated with NT, almost half of the respondents from each country (49% in Canada vs. 47%o in Korea) were at least somewhat worried about the risks associated with NT.Respondents were much more concerned about NT-associated risks to human health than the environment.Ways that these risk perceptions might be mitigated also varied, especially between the public and experts.Although many respondents indicated they were concerned about NTassociated risks, these ultimately ranked much lower than other identified risks that are known to threaten human health and the environment.Interviews with expefts provided greater detail on their attitudes towards risks associated with nanotechnology and nanomaterials.The interviews further identified that any risks could be best addressed, in decreasing order of importance, by increases in research, regulation, and more effective communication with the public.Of tlie 20 independent variables that played an important role in shaping attitudes regarding health and environmental risks associated with NT, six of them, such as trust in scientists, companies, technology, as well as increased public debate, accountability of nano-industries, and regulation were all highly significant for respondents who recognized the need to address the substantial health and environmental risks.Aoe Perceptions of NT s.H. oH,2009 marital status, financial wellbeing, gender, discipline, and religion were also all significant.However, it is also important to note that there seemed to be little overall awareness in either country as to how the public might become better informed and involved in NT decision-making.
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
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 ».