Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many citizens have been alarmed by the development of nuclear facilities, especially when the proposed site for a nuclear plant is located in their neibourghood or region. Parliamentary democracy is not particularly appropriate as a means of channeling citizens' apprehensions and commrnyd. Legislative power is delegated every four years or so to elected members of Parliament. Meanwhile, citizens have no say in the business of the State. The administration is even more remote since administrations of government departments, boards and corporations are not elected and parliamentary control is often weak and sometimes non-existent. The frustration of citizens and groups is therefore exacerbated by the lack of access to the decision-making process. Exasperation sometimes leads to violent demonstrations and acts of terrorism. To counter this feeling ofpowerlessness, governments have developed some means of positive participation. Firstly, channels of information have been opened so that rumours can be replaced by facts and objective policy statements. This requires from the Administration that its proposals be fully justified and that preliminary work has been made. Secondly, the development of public inquiries gives interested persons and groups the feeling they are integrated in the decision making process instead of being left outside in the dark. Parliamentary control can be updated to allow for national debates on nuclear policy and its implementation. Finally, the use of the referendum technique at the national, regional or local level would give back to the people their freedom of expression on such issues. The examples set by Austria and Sweden are particularly interesting in this respect. However, the equilibrium between the requirements of democracy and political expediency still remains very hard to find.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".