Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) proposed Adaptive Phased Management (APM) as an approach for managing used nuclear fuel in November 2005 NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization). 2005. Choosing a way forward: The future management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel, Toronto: NWMO. Final study [Google Scholar], and this approach was approved by government in June 2007. APM involves either disposing of or storing used nuclear fuel in geological formations, but leaves decisions about options and timing to political contest. Site assessment processes are now underway, with site selection expected within 30 years. This paper shows how APM developed out of repeated public policy failures and decreasing political support for nuclear projects, including at early site assessments (1978–1981), when the mandate for a public inquiry was set (1989), and at a public inquiry into a waste disposal concept (in 1996–1997). I argue that the current NWMO approach was shaped by these failures, but in an ambiguous fashion. APM both incorporates critics’ demands and thus limits the institutional discretion of elites, but also converts those demands into less challenging kinds of questions. Concerns about the origins of options are being translated into concerns about the management of consequences. The extent to which one accepts the scope of assumptions embedded in APM is the extent to which the expansion of nuclear power itself is reinforced.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".