Canadian Public and Stakeholder Engagement Approach to a Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After Canada has struggled with a radioactive waste problem over for 20 years, the Canadian government finally found out that its approach by far has been lack of social acceptance, and needed a program such as public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) which involves the public in decision-making process. Therefore, the government made a special law, called Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA), to search for an appropriate nuclear waste management approach. NFWA laid out three possible approaches which were already prepared in advance by a nuclear expert group, and required Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to be established to report a recommendation as to which of the proposed approaches should be adopted. However, NFWA allowed NWMO to consider additional management approach if the other three were not acceptable enough. Thus, NWMO studied and created a fourth management approach after it had undertaken an comparison of the benefits, risks and costs of each management approach: Adaptive Phased Management. This approach was intended to enable the implementers to accept any technological advancement or changes even in the middle of the implementation of the plan. The Canadian PSE case well shows that technological R&D are deeply connected with social acceptance. Even though the developments and technological advancement are carried out by the scientists and experts, but it is important to collect the public opinion by involving them to the decision-making process in order to achieve objective validity on the R&D programs. Moreover, in an effort to ensure the principles such as fairness, public health and safety, security, and adoptability, NWMO tried to make those abstract ideas more specific and help the public understand the meaning of each concept more in detail. Also, they utilized a variety of communication methods from face-to-face meeting to e-dialogue to encourage people to participate in the program as much as possible. Given the fact that Korea has been also having a hard time in dealing with spent nuclear fuel management, all of these efforts that Canada has made with a PSE program would give good lessons and implications to the Korean case. In conclusion, as a deliberative participation program, PSE could be a possible breakthrough approach for the Korean spent nuclear fuel management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".