MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2278599842

Wind Energy Development in the Great Lakes Region: Current Issues and Public Opinion

2014· article· en· W2278599842 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Mills, Christopher P. Borick, Christopher Gore, Barry G. Rabe

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerPopulationQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographyElectricityEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyEngineeringDemographySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, both Canada and the United States have seen exponential growth in the percentage of electricity that comes from wind energy. The Great Lakes Region is no exception. The Region had just over 344 megawatts (MW) of wind energy in 2000; by late 2013 that number had risen forty-fivefold to 15,505MW.Wind turbines, though, are not spread evenly across the Region. Nearly a quarter (23%) of the wind energy around the Great Lakes comes from Illinois, while Ohio produces less than 3% of the Region’s wind energy. Ontario accounts for 15% of the Region’s total, and leads Canada in provincial wind energy production. Further, even within a state or province, windfarms tend to be concentrated in specific rural areas where there are ample wind resources and proximity to transmission lines, but low enough population densities to safely site turbines. As a result, residents across the Great Lakes Region may have widely varying familiarity and experiences with wind development. While as a group, residents of the Great Lakes Basin overwhelmingly support additional wind power development within the Region and see the beneficial rather than harmful impacts of wind energy, there remain a number of skeptics. Specifically, residents in Ontario tend to be less supportive of additional wind development and more believing of the potential negative consequences of wind energy than their American counterparts. There are a number of possible explanations for this difference that we hope to further explore. It could be due to more first-hand experience with wind turbines, it could be a result of increased exposure to controversy surrounding windfarms as a result of the rapid expansion of wind development in the province, or it could be backlash against the provincial government taking windfarm siting authority away from local municipalities. Alternatively, Ontarians’ skepticism of wind could be the result of more peripheral energy issues: increasing electricity prices in Ontario in recent years, or general dislike with provincial energy policy given its many shifts over the past decade. In order to set the stage for understanding the differing levels of support for wind energy throughout the Great Lakes Region, this report first describes the renewable energy policy environment in each of the states and provinces, and how that has translated into additional wind energy development in the last decade. It then looks at the results of the Great Lakes Region Public Opinion Survey, the specifics of which are discussed in greater detail in sections to follow.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→