MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108277334 · doi:10.1162/152638003763336400

Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security

2003· article· en· W2108277334 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Stoett

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Environmental Politics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Nuclear powerPoliticsLegitimacyPolitical economyEnergy securityNuclear industryNuclear power industryPolitical scienceInternational tradeBusinessEconomyEconomicsLawEngineeringRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With calls for the renewal of the nuclear energy industry in the United States and elsewhere, the international political economy of this troubled industry assumes increased importance. Though technical difficulties have plagued the industry for many decades, it is the equally problematic task of establishing public trust on which the article focuses. Arguably, with the advent of widespread concern over global warming, nuclear power offers a low-emission alternative. Yet safety, security, and political concerns color this highly centralized energy source, as well as its export-based political economy. The article traces the history of global nuclear commerce, as well as recent attempts to revive the industry. I suggest that efforts to re-legitimize the state-industry-power complex by way of nuclear commerce and associated discourse may have some success, but this will be tempered by sustained opposition to the centralizing tendencies of nuclear power and continued safety concerns.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.071
Scholarly communication0.0170.022
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Environmental PoliticsSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207