Public awareness and opinion on CCS in the province of Québec, 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
Abstract CO 2 capture and geological storage (CCS) is a major topic of interest in Canada, where many CCS projects are either underway or in the planning stage. In order to get information about public acceptance for a potential CCS pilot project in the province of Québec, two identical Internet‐based public awareness and opinion surveys were conducted: one in 2010 and one in 2011. Results of the two surveys show that respondents are not really aware of what climate change is and that they know almost nothing about CCS. In 2010, respondents did not generally reject CCS technology or a potential pilot project in their region. In fact, they were slightly favorable toward such a project. In 2011, the picture changed slightly as an intense debate on shale gas exploration had taken place in the province at the end of 2010. It appears that respondents were less likely to be favorable toward the use of CCS. It is not possible to specifically link the increase of respondents against CCS or a potential pilot project and the increase of security concerns to the debate regarding shale gas exploration. However, the social context in a region where controversial shale gas activities are underway may not be the best for a potential CCS pilot project to become accepted by the local community. © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it