MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553523573 · doi:10.1002/wcc.450

Public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and oil in the United States and Canada

2017· article· en· W2553523573 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Merryn Thomas, Nick Pidgeon, Darrick Evensen, Tristan Partridge, Ariel Hasell, Catherine Enders, Barbara Herr Harthorn, Michael Bradshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Energy Research CentreNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingDistrustContext (archaeology)PoliticsTransparency (behavior)PerceptionPublic trustPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessGeographyEngineeringLawPsychologyPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States and Canada have been at the forefront of shale oil and gas development via hydraulic fracturing. Understanding public perceptions is important given the role that they may play in future policy decisions in both North America and other parts of the world where shale development is at a much earlier stage. We review 58 articles pertaining to perceptions, published between 2009 and 2015. Studies report mixed levels of awareness of shale operations, tending toward higher awareness in areas with existing development. While individuals tend to have negative associations with the term ‘fracking,’ views on shale development are mixed as to whether benefits outweigh risks or vice versa: perceived benefits tend to be economic (e.g., job creation and boosts to local economies) and risks more commonly environmental and/or social (e.g., impacts on water and increased traffic). Some papers point to ethical issues (e.g., inequitable risk/benefit distribution and procedural justice) and widespread distrust of responsible parties, stemming from perceived unfairness, heavy‐handed corporate tactics, and lack of transparency. These findings point to the contested, political character of much of the debate about hydraulic fracturing, and raise questions of what constitutes ‘acceptable’ risk in this context. We compare these results with research emerging in the UK over the same period. Future research should focus on nuanced inquiry, a range of methodologies and explore perceptions in varied social and geographical contexts. Both this and future research hold the potential to enhance public debates and decisions about shale gas and oil development. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e450. doi: 10.1002/wcc.450 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior

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)0.022
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate ChangeSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207