Evaluating public consultation in nuclear energy: the importance of problem structuring and scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper hypothesizes that in respect of developing nuclear energy, utilizing one process, on one occasion, and with only the development of nuclear energy as the “policy problem” on which consultations are based will not be successful; a more successful model occurs over the long term, utilizes an iterative process of engagement, and multiple framing of related energy issues (in addition to the development of nuclear energy). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper reviews and analyzes the framing of issues and chosen mechanisms of public consultations employed by the Government of Saskatchewan in relation to the nuclear energy future for Saskatchewan. These mechanisms are reviewed based on the perceptions and comments made by members of the public within the consultations which were recorded, coded and analysed, as well as a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with key personnel involved in the consultation process. The three mechanisms of public participation employed by the Government of Saskatchewan are analyzed and evaluated and a model developed to facilitate the analysis. Findings – Alternative measures of successful participation are useful. The framing of issues, the time frame of analysis, and quality of communication flows are all determinative of success. The utilization of a combination of participatory mechanisms is also beneficial. An optimal strategy of public consultations respecting energy is developed based on interviews with key personnel in the policy field. Research limitations/implications – This research is based only on the perceptions of participants expressed within the participatory processes and key personnel in the energy policy field of Saskatchewan. Originality/value – This paper offers a model linking several policy considerations useful to future energy policy public consultations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.250 | 0.400 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".