Public awareness and opinion on CCS in the province of Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract CO2 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".