MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980211749 · doi:10.7202/043165ar

L'énergie nucléaire : la nécessité de nouvelles approches

2005· article· fr· W1980211749 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Denis Bourque

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Par l'exercice du pouvoir déclaratoire, le Parlement fédéral a acquis une compétence législative sur l'ensemble du cycle du combustible nucléaire. Ce sont donc les lois adoptées par le Parlement fédéral qui s'appliquent aux centrales nucléaires. La nouvelle Loi canadienne sur l'évaluation environnementale sanctionnée le 23 juin 1992 (non encore en vigueur) vient préciser la nature, le but et la portée des audiences publiques tenues dans le cadre de la construction d'une centrale nucléaire. Les réflexions de l'auteur sur le rôle de l'audience publique dans le contexte canadien le conduisent à formuler des considérations plus générales sur la nécessité de structurer, de façon différente, les mécanismes décisionnels afin de tenir compte des nouvelles valeurs auxquelles adhèrent des segments importants de la population. Des mécanismes de décision plus ouverts et plus démocratiques, autant pour l'élaboration du contenu des politiques énergétiques que pour l'implantation des projets particuliers, constituent l'une des voies à explorer pour parvenir à une meilleure compréhension et acceptation de l'énergie nucléaire par la population.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207