MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234326964 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654517

Canadian environmental non-governmental organizations positions regarding nuclear power in Ontario

2021· preprint· en· W4234326964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jay P. D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerClimate changePower (physics)Political scienceNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine if Canadian ENGOs are less opposed to the use of nuclear power in Ontario since 2001 and to determine if any changes are due in part to a ~ broader response to concerns over climate change. Analysis included interviews of fifteen ENGO employees from fourteen Ontario-based Canadian ENGOs and text analysis of nine ENGOs. There is some evidence that some of the ENGOs studied have in fact softened their stance on nuclear power to become slightly less negatively disposed to the technology, but not more positively disposed. This analysis revealed evidence that two of the fourteen ENGOs may have become slightly more neutral in their references to nuclear power. However, only one of the two organizations shifted its stance due to the concerns over climate change and desire for CO. 2 emissions reductions .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207