Governing Nuclear Waste : What Should Be the Roles of National Regulatory Bodies ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most nuclear countries across the world, geological disposal appears as the main option to manage high-level radioactive waste. Many new socio-economic, technical and safety issues arise with the implementation of this option. In the process of addressing these issues, national regulatory bodies stand out as crucial actors. While descriptions of their legal responsibilities abound, studies investigating the future normative choices emerging with the governance of toxic waste are needed. What should be the roles of regulators in dealing with the very sensitive siting process? According to whom? What does it mean for the credibility of the siting process? This presentation aims at systematically comparing three different regulation regimes and infrastructures of high-level radioactive waste management, based on actual perceptions of nuclear stakeholders of how, when and on what should national regulatory bodies intervene. Collected empirical data include a combination of empirical materials—i.e. legal requirements, safety case reports, participatory observations of consultation processes, 82 semi-directive interviews with policy makers, nuclear waste agencies, nuclear regulators in France, Belgium and Canada and local actors such as members of local information and monitoring council (CLIS) and members of the community liaison committee of four volunteer collectivities (CLC).
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 | 0.062 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".