Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an emerging technology, nanotechnology QrfT) is making rapid progress with respect to its commercial production, distribution, and marketing.Although nanoproducts are widely available in both Canada and South Korea, few studies have adequately explored the social implications of this new technology in either country or between countries with distinct cultural and societal differences.The current study is the first to compare public and expert attitudes regarding nanotechnology between North America and Asia.The objective of this thesis was to better understand how experl and public attitudes differ regarding science and technology and the possible human health and environmental risks associated with nanotechnology and nanoproducts.To accomplish this, interviews were conducted with the general public, university students, and nanotechnology experts from November, 2007 to May, 2008 in Canada and Korea to gauge risk perceptions around NT.Overall, most respondents from Canada and especially Korea (84% vs.94o/o)had heard of NT, but relatively few (24% vs.I6Yo) indicated they were knowledgeable of the technology.Yet the respondents, especially Koreans, were generally highly optimistic about the technology.Respondents were most excited about the potential of NT for improved human health, especially Canadians, followed by environmental benefits.Respondents from both countries sorted out into three groups: opponents that were highly critical of NT, proponents that were highly supportive, and a third group, conditional proponents that seemed to evaluate benef,rts against the potential risks before making any decision.Male public respondents from both countries were less likely to be critical than their female counterparts.Perceptions of NT s.H. oH, 2009 Of the 16 independent variables that shaped attitudes towards science and technology and implications for perceptions regarding NT, concerns of social impacts, the envirorunent, human health, and public input and trust in scientists, science, and technology were very imporlant.Expertise in NT, levels of formal education, academic specialization, gender, age, religion, marital status, and financial wellbeing were also meaningful.Regarding perceptions of health and environmental risks associated with NT, almost half of the respondents from each country (49% in Canada vs. 47%o in Korea) were at least somewhat worried about the risks associated with NT.Respondents were much more concerned about NT-associated risks to human health than the environment.Ways that these risk perceptions might be mitigated also varied, especially between the public and experts.Although many respondents indicated they were concerned about NTassociated risks, these ultimately ranked much lower than other identified risks that are known to threaten human health and the environment.Interviews with expefts provided greater detail on their attitudes towards risks associated with nanotechnology and nanomaterials.The interviews further identified that any risks could be best addressed, in decreasing order of importance, by increases in research, regulation, and more effective communication with the public.Of tlie 20 independent variables that played an important role in shaping attitudes regarding health and environmental risks associated with NT, six of them, such as trust in scientists, companies, technology, as well as increased public debate, accountability of nano-industries, and regulation were all highly significant for respondents who recognized the need to address the substantial health and environmental risks.Aoe Perceptions of NT s.H. oH,2009 marital status, financial wellbeing, gender, discipline, and religion were also all significant.However, it is also important to note that there seemed to be little overall awareness in either country as to how the public might become better informed and involved in NT decision-making.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".