Public Perceptions and Support of Renewable Energy in North America in the Context of Global Climate Change
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
There is substantial interest in developing a coherent and effective North American renewable energy policy as a way to secure energy but also to mitigate global climate change. Based on surveys of the public in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the article shows the levels of concern over climate change threats, perceived risk, knowledge of climate change policies, levels of uncertainty, and other perception factors to help understand the relationships between public perceptions and policy preferences for renewable energy. Results show national differences between the three countries in nearly all climate change perceptions, with Mexico reflecting the highest levels of concern and the United States the lowest. Mexico also shows the greatest support for renewable energy sources. However, the results show very high levels of uncertainty about climate change dimensions concerning risk, science, and knowledge and the effectiveness of policy approaches. The data demonstrate strong statistical correlations between risk perception factors and preferences for mitigation policies in the form of renewable energy policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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