Towards meaningful stakeholder comprehension of sour gas facility risk assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disconnect between a risk assessment by the proponent of a sour gas development and the stakeholders affected is addressed by attempting to understand the implied logic and reasoning embedded in the different perspectives. While a risk assessment may assure the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) and the proponent that there is no immediate danger to the stakeholders, public response often indicates that the stakeholders have not been reassured and their specific concerns remain unaddressed. The concepts of "I am at risk" vs. "There may be a risk" are developed in conjunction with the concept of the assumed, but unknowable, exposed population. Effective risk communication requires a two-way process to address the value judgements that scientific methodology cannot resolve. Stakeholders were not polled for their response to risk assessments; one author (CM) attempted to bridge this gulf on the basis of relevant personal experience. The concepts discussed are applicable to a wide range of issues involving accidental releases of chemicals. Key words: risk, risk communication, risk management, sour gas facilities, hydrogen sulphide.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".