MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009626179 · doi:10.1007/s11270-009-0270-y

Is Nuclear Energy the Solution?

2009· article· en· W2009626179 on OpenAlexaff
Milton H. Saier, J. T. Trevors

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Air & Soil Pollution · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerRenewable energyElectricityRadioactive wasteBusinessFossil fuelNatural resource economicsEngineeringWaste managementEconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 29th, 2009, one of us, (MHS) attended a lecture on “Nuclear Responsibility” on the University of California, San Diego campus. The speaker was Rochelle Becker, Executive Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. The information presented was both revealing and upsetting and is documented extensively in a pamphlet entitled: “Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry Is Risky.” These sources emphasized the problems that exist, especially in the USA. This editorial is based on these sources. We should all know that: first, investments in nuclear power are risky as indicated by the fact that Wall Street has chosen to stay clear; second, nuclear power plants are stated terrorist targets and carry serious risks of their own; third, nuclear power will not reduce our dependencies on foreign energy as is sometimes claimed; fourth, nuclear-generated electricity does not compare favorably with electricity derived from either the combustion of fossil fuels or renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and tide, and finally, there is currently no good means of nuclear waste disposal, hence more environmental pollution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Air & Soil PollutionSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207