Welcome waste – interpreting narratives of radioactive waste disposal in two small towns in Ontario, Canada
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
After briefly reviewing the production of nuclear energy and waste in Canada, this paper uses two small Ontario towns as case studies to examine the treatment of low-level radioactive waste and the communities’ responses and narratives to it. Both towns, Port Hope and Kincardine, have long histories of dealing with such waste. Using interviews, relevant websites and past accounts, this paper employs a discourse analysis to understand the differences in risk perceptions and living with the presence of these materials. Ideas from landscape narratives are employed to show that responses in Port Hope are dominated by death, elegy and crime, whereas those in Kincardine are predominately linked to progressivism and optimism. We explore the characteristics of each case to highlight the reasons for these differences. We conclude by emphasizing the potential role of narrative analysis in informing policymaking.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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