MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404704854 · doi:10.4236/oalib.1112427

“No Action likely”: An Exploration of Institutional Bias Against Citizen Complaints about Wind Turbine Noise and Adverse Health Effects as Demonstrated by the Government in Ontario, Canada

2024· article· en· W4404704854 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOALib · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Noise (video)Action (physics)Adverse effectTurbineMedicineEngineeringPharmacologyComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nation Rise wind power project was the last industrial-scale or grid-scale wind power project approved in Ontario, Canada despite controversy, opposition and legal action from the "host" community, and even an attempt by the environment minister himself to stop it.Problems surfaced early for the project, months before it was granted a formal commercial operation date, as residents complained of noise from the wind turbines.Documents including email correspondence referencing noise complaints made to the provincial government's environment ministry were obtained via Freedom of Information legislation.The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has a mandate to protect the environment and to enforce existing regulations.The documents appear to show that the environment ministry of the Government of Ontario had no intention of taking action on the citizen complaints.The only action evident was cursory responses to complaints, and simply logging events; no other action appears to have been taken by the staff in the environment ministry, which is the regulator for wind turbine power projects.Email correspondence between ministry staff and the wind power developer/operator demonstrates a casual, even cosy relationship, so much so that a senior environmental officer, representing the government as a regulator, actually asked the power plant operator what to do about the noise complaints.The correspondence may indicate institutional bias toward the operator, and against the public.Our findings: 1) Complaints about noise from wind turbines arose early on in this power generation project, before Commercial Operation date was determined as part of its contract.2) Ministry staff seem

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.260 · 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