Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) put forth recommendations about how Saskatchewan could better utilize its uranium resources. A qualitative analysis of written stakeholder responses was conducted and four value clusters were revealed (traditional market values, green market values, deep ecology values, and sustainability values; Dolter & Arbuthnott, 2010). Measurement of environmental concern has typically been addressed within the areas of risk perception (e.g., worldview/identity grid; Kahan & Brahman, 2006), values research (e.g., New Environmental Paradigm; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 1990), and temporal concern (e.g., Consideration of Future Consequences; Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger & Edwards, 1994); however, the four values revealed in the stakeholder responses spanned these three directions. This suggests that current measurement instruments may not provide an adequate assessment of all value clusters. The purpose of this study is to assess the reliability and validity of the proposed scale and to assess whether the relationship between the four values and the UDP recommendations generalizes beyond the stakeholders of the public consultation.
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 | 0.039 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".