Taking Risk Seriously: Discourses and Worldviews in a Nuclear Waste Controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy controversies over technologies with uncertain risks are highly polarizing. Stakeholder and public discussions about such ‘risky technologies’ typically divide over policy frames grounded in different underlying narratives concerning the relational dynamics among humans, technologies, and the environment that warrant distinct approaches for understanding and managing risk. The dissertation presents an approach to depolarizing risk that involves surfacing cultural narratives and finding discursive and institutional means to bridge them. Through an interpretive policy analysis, this dissertation examines the discourse of two key policy actors in the controversy over Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) proposed deep geological repository (DGR) for low and intermediate level nuclear waste sited near Lake Huron. Specifically, it examines how the regulator (OPG) and a community action group, Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump (STGLND), engaged in a framing struggle about the DGR and its putative environmental effects. It shows that key elements of OPG's discursive frame were anchored to a cultural narrative describing the ability of rock to protect ecologies and humans from nuclear waste. The same elements of STGLND's discursive frame anchored emphasized the vulnerability of water to contamination from nuclear waste. The dissertation argues that these competing narratives align with longstanding socio-technological worldviews.The dissertation also discovers the presence of an intertext—a backdrop of discursive common ground—for the policy controversy amid statements by geologists describing DGRs as a promising technology that, due to environmental risks involved, requires more exhaustive and publicly accountable study. The “Responsible Geologist” intertext, it argues, has potential to act as a neutral policy frame for depolarizing public and stakeholder dialogue about DGRs. Finally, the dissertation describes how polarized dialogues around technological and environmental risk issues could be alleviated through the creation of distinctly collaborative environmental impact assessment and risk assessment procedures. Such processes would engage citizens from different socio-cultural worldviews in a deliberative mode that is at once synthetic of diversity and evidence-based while being simultaneously committed to both ethics and innovation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".