Factores que inhiben la movilización social: el caso del área petroquímica de Tarragona
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los estudios sobre percepción social del riesgo se han solido centrar en el estudio de conflictos sociales motivados por tecnologías y eventos potencialmente peligrosos. En este artículo, en cambio, se intenta comprender por qué en determinados casos la población expuesta a un riesgo evidente no protesta ni se moviliza activamente en su contra. A partir de un estudio de caso en el área petroquímica de Tarragona, con datos de una serie de grupos de discusión (8) y de una encuesta por cuestionario (N=400), se analizan las percepciones y prácticas de la población en relación al riesgo. Los resultados han permitido descartar motivos de ignorancia de los riesgos y ponderar la importancia de los beneficios relacionados con la exposición al riesgo, así como comprender el papel fundamental de la confianza y de la dependencia en un contexto social e institucional caracterizado por una fuerte asimetría en las relaciones de poder.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".