“Risk Is a Social Thing, Not Just a Mathematical Thing:” A Model for Stakeholder Engagement in Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract A practical model is needed for stakeholder engagement in decision making that involves risks to public safety. An effective model should be adaptable to contingencies and meet the needs of diverse stakeholders in a democratic setting. This paper presents a new model for stakeholder consultation and knowledge exchange that has been derived through the use of case study and grounded theory. Data were mainly comprised of 30 one‐on‐one interviews with stakeholders involved in the decision making processes for the re‐licensing of two nuclear power generation facilities in Ontario, Canada. The model is centered upon the importance of developing and maintaining quality relationships among stakeholders before, during, and after consultation, in part through active communication and conflict management through skilled facilitation. Also important are stakeholders' divergent perceptions about risk, and understanding of the risks associated with the decision to be made. The paper concludes with recommendations for policy and practice. Investment in a long‐term, relationship‐centred approach can enable future projects to remain on‐time and on‐budget.
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 | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".