Wind Turbines: Why Some Families Living in Proximity to Wind Energy Facilities Contemplate Vacating Their Homes: An Overview of Findings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Some families living near wind energy facilities report permanently vacating their homes while others contemplate doing so. While these events are reported on the Internet and social media, research is lacking. This study explored why some people living in proximity to wind turbines contemplate such housing decisions. Methods: This ethics-reviewed study used the Grounded Theory methodology and audio recorded interviews with those who had previously lived, or were currently living near wind turbines. Audio files were transcribed to text, and the data analysed using NVivo12 Pro software. Objectives: To explore the events that influenced families living within 10 km from wind energy facilities to contemplate vacating their homes. To generate a substantive theory regarding these housing decisions. Results: All 67 participants associated occurrences of adverse health effects, or the potential for such effects when living within 10 km of a wind energy facility. Some temporarily left during the day and/or night to alleviate effects. Discussion: This article presents an overview of results with additional details pending in future peer-
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it