Public knowledge, sentiments, and perceptions of low dose radiation (LDR) and power production, with special reference to reactor accidents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People’s perceptions concerning radiation inform decision making in relation to nuclear power production. There have been extensive studies of people’s perceptions of radiation including in relation to the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear events. This paper reports on a social science literature review study and is concerned with public responses to low dose radiation (LDR) and nuclear facilities, particularly in the marine environment. This review confirms that people with little knowledge about radiation have the highest risk perceptions in relation to nuclear power; conversely people with a broader knowledge have lower risk perceptions and are more favourable to nuclear power. Education can increase positive perceptions, but the influence of underlying experience of feeling, emotion, attachment, or mood may dampen this effect. This paper reports studies which document anxiety within the Japanese community in relation to the Fukushima nuclear accident. Literature concerning specific radionuclides released is described. While there are uncertainties about the presence of health impacts following LDR exposures, public attitudes are not in line. There is a need for better dialogue between nuclear professionals and scientists to achieve better nuclear education and public communication outcomes; more specific communication surrounding multi-isotopes, and multi-elements of nuclear power plant disaster releases is warranted. Trusted communicators should include nuclear and social scientists as well as regulators. Given the importance of decarbonization in the context of climate change, this is increasingly important.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".