Two Paradigmatic Waves of Public Discourse on Nuclear Waste in the United States, 1945-2009: Understanding a Magnitudinal and Longitudinal Phenomenon in Anthropological Terms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project set out to illuminate the discursive existence of nuclear waste in American culture. Given the significant temporal dimension of the phenomenon as well as the challenging size of the United States setting, the project adapted key methodological elements of the sociocultural anthropology tradition and produced proxies for ethnographic fieldnotes and key informant interviews through sampling the digital archives of the New York Times over a 64-year period that starts with the first recorded occurrence of the notion of nuclear waste and ends with the conclusion of the presidency of George W. Bush. Two paradigmatic waves of American public discourse on nuclear waste come to light when subjecting this empirical data to quantitative inventorying and interpretive analysis: between 1945 and 1969 nuclear waste was generally framed in light of the beneficial utilizations of nuclear reactions and with optimistic expectations for a scientific/technological solution; by contrast, between 1969 and 2009 nuclear waste was conceptualized as inherited harm that could not be undone and contestation that required political/legal management. Besides this key finding and the empirical timing of the two paradigms, the study's value lies also with its detailed empirical documentation of nuclear waste in its sociocultural existence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".