Diverse community energy futures in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research explores peoples’ place attachment and context surrounding power production and energy futures. Facilitated, deliberative focus groups were conducted as comparative case studies in three fossil fuel-dependent cities in Saskatchewan Canada: Estevan (situated next to the provincial centers of coal, oil and gas production), Saskatoon (situated more northerly and furthest from coal, oil and gas production) and the capital city of Regina. (situated between the other two communities). This study supports the conclusions: (1) participants believed the focus groups improved their knowledge surrounding power production; (2) although there is strong support for wind and solar power production, there is a gap in implementation; and (3) place-based location impacts perceptions of power production sources. Participants were surveyed before and after focus group meetings to explore the perceptions and preferences of power productions sources. All three communities favored renewables in the order of solar and wind. Estevan, supported carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to a greater degree and perceived much lower risk surrounding CCS than the other two communities. This may be explained by information gaps in this community. Participants were far less likely to believe a climate crisis is occurring, and while recognizing health concerns surrounding coal, they spent considerably more time discussing the loss of coal and its impact on their economy. Saskatoon, the community furthest from coal oil and gas production, spent considerable time discussing renewables, and when asked about coal, oil and gas identified the need to transition and retrain dependent workers. Although the uranium sector is present in Saskatchewan and in closer proximity to Saskatoon, there was little knowledge or support for new small modular nuclear reactors. Graphic abstract
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".