MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Views from the shore: An analysis of public comments on an offshore wind energy future in Nova Scotia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4411451044 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabella Ahern, Chad Walker, J.B. Roux, Zoé Chateau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Planning and Policy / Aménagement et politique au Canada · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDartmouth College
KeywordsOffshore wind powerNova scotiaGovernment (linguistics)Wind powerWork (physics)Political scienceEnvironmental planningThematic analysisPublic consultationPoliticsPublic policyEnvironmental resource managementBusinessGeographyPublic relationsSociologyEngineeringEnvironmental scienceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centered around concerns of climate change, energy security, and the need for low-cost clean electricity, many jurisdictions that have access to maritime areas are developing offshore wind energy. The province of Nova Scotia, Canada – home to some of the strongest offshore wind resources in the world – is one such place. Yet before development, governments need to listen, understand, and respond to the views of a diverse set of stakeholders, and affected publics. Using online and in-person open house comments, this exploratory study was conducted to determine the level and type of socio-political acceptance during the initial planning stages of offshore wind energy in Nova Scotia. Content analysis revealed that many people who participated in these consultations were initially ambivalent/unclear (with more opposed than supportive) – with regard to offshore wind energy. Consultees most opposed were Indigenous peoples/representatives, members of the general public, and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Thematic analysis identified six main themes, with the most referenced being concerns around biodiversity impacts and general environmental concerns. We close the paper with a discussion of the broader implications of our work, including relevance to future research, planning, and policy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Planning and Policy / Aménagement et politique au CanadaSame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207