Radwaste in Canada: a political economy of uncertainty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it