Public attitudes toward geological disposal of carbon dioxide in Canada
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
Geological disposal of carbon dioxide (GDC) is being considered for a significant role in Canada's climate change strategy, but public support for the technology is unclear. To address this knowledge gap, two focus groups and a national survey were conducted to investigate the public's perceptions of the benefits and risks of GDC, the likely determinants of public opinion, and overall support for the use of GDC in Canada. The results showed that Canadians are slightly supportive of GDC development in Canada, perceive the technology as having a net positive impact on the environment, and believe that GDC is less risky than normal oil and gas industry operations, nuclear power, or coal-burning power plants. A majority of Canadians would likely use GDC in a climate change strategy, although it will have to be used in combination with energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies in order to retain public support.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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