Climate change energy futures in business, industry and mining in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to report business preferences for achieving net-zero power production emissions in Saskatchewan, Canada as well as business perceptions of the most preferable power production sources, barriers to change and suggestions for improvement. Mixed methods included focus groups and a survey with experimental design. This research demonstrates that this method of advancing academic and business knowledge systems can engender a paradigmatic shift to decarbonization. Design/methodology/approach The study is a mixed-methods study using five focus groups and a survey which included a 15-min information video providing more information on power production sources (small modular reactors and biomass). Participants requested more information on these topics in the initial three focus groups. Findings There is a significant gap in Canadian Government targets for net-zero emissions by 2050 and businesses’ plans. Communications, knowledge and capacity gaps identified include lack of regulatory requirements, institutional barriers (including a capacity charge in the event a business chooses to self-generate with a cleaner source) and multi-level governance dissonance. More cooperation between provincial governments and the federal government was identified by participants as a requirement for achieving targets. Providing information to survey respondents increased support for clean and renewable sources, but gender and knowledge are still important characteristics contributing to support for different power production sources. Scientists and teachers were the most trusted sources of information. Power generated from small modular nuclear reactors was identified as the primary future source of power production followed by solar, wind and natural gas. Research results also confirmed the high level of support for hydropower generated in Saskatchewan versus import from Manitoba based on high values of energy solidarity and security within the province. Originality/value This study is original, as it concerns upstream system power production portfolios and not failed projects; the mixed-method research design including a focus group and an experimental survey is novel. This research partially addresses a gap in knowledge surrounding which knowledge systems advance paradigmatic shifts and how and whether involving business people in upstream power production decisions can inform decarbonization.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".