Responsible innovation: an approach for extracting public values concerning advanced biofuels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of our study was to test an approach for extracting public values concerning a virtually unknown and scientifically complex topic, namely advanced lignocellulosic biofuels, in order to foster responsible innovation of this novel technology in Canada as early on in the policy-making process as possible. As advanced lignocellulosic biofuels are currently an emerging form of liquid fuel for transport, it may be beneficial to open the development of this technology to “upstream” public input. We thereby explore how a deliberative mini-public views the need for advanced lignocellulosic biofuels and their recommendations for supporting or opposing its development and production. Participants of the study engaged in four days of deliberation on their value-based considerations concerning the social acceptability of this technology. On the final day, they developed a series of collective recommendations on three participant-generated agenda items: economic sustainability, unknown environmental and health impacts, and governance issues related to responsibility for advanced biofuels policy. The results provide a novel input into interdisciplinary research aimed at better understanding what may be driving public values on wider, sometimes controversial, issues related to biofuels.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".