Text Mining Analysis of Public Comments Regarding High-level Radioactive Waste Disposal
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
In order to narrow the risk perception gap as seen in social investigations between the general public and people who are involved in nuclear industry, public comments on high-level radioactive waste (HLW) disposal have been conducted to find the significant talking points with the general public for constructing an effective risk communication model of social risk information regarding HLW disposal. Text mining was introduced to examine public comments to identify the core public interest underlying the comments. The utilized text mining method is to cluster specific groups of words with negative meanings and then to analyze public understanding by employing text structural analysis to extract words from subjective expressions. Using these procedures, it was found that the public does not trust the nuclear fuel cycle promotion policy and shows signs of anxiety about the long-lasting technological reliability of waste storage. To develop effective social risk communication of HLW issues, these findings are expected to help experts in the nuclear industry to communicate with the general public more effectively to obtain their trust.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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