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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mid 1980’s Canada’s plans for nuclear fuel waste (NFW) management, and the authority and knowledge of the nuclear industry have been brought into question. One of the most significant contemporary challenges to the narratives and claims of the nuclear industry about the safety of NFW, its effects and its management, is the experience of Aboriginal peoples, such as the Serpent River First Nation (SRFN), with different parts of the nuclear fuel chain. This paper interrogates the means through which the nuclear industry (through the work of the newly formed Nuclear Waste Management Organization) maintains control over the production of knowledge about NFW and contains and redirects the challenges to their accounts presented by Aboriginal peoples. I identify a discourse of ‘modern risk’ as instrumental to the industry’s success, and using insights from recent scholarship on scale and power, examine the relationship cast between the knowledge of the nuclear industry and of the SRFN. I argue that the discourse of modern risk is a scalar discourse that normalizes the claims of the nuclear industry and disqualifies those of the Serpent River First Nation by scaling knowledge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it