Blades Of Fury: A Look At Wind Energy Resistance In Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic activities are causing unequivocal and persistent climatic alterations. Wind energy and other alternative energy forms can minimize harmful emissions and provide sustainable solutions to climate change. Despite environmental benefits, public backlash and implementation issues impede wind energy. The development of wind energy in Ontario is substantially impacted by public perception of the technology. \nThis paper explores the social barriers to the widespread adoption of wind energy in the province as identified by residents in two rural communities - Prince Edward County and Kincardine. Forty-one residents in close proximity to the Armow Wind and the White Pines Wind projects were asked to describe their experiences with project planning and identify grievances. Human health, noise concerns, property value, and aesthetic disruption are primary concerns for residents, which is consistent with findings presented in the academic literature. \nPublic perception plays an integral role in project development. Wind energy in Ontario faces significant resistance from community inhabitants near wind farm developments. This paper also examines how public participation in energy planning shapes residential wind energy perceptions. An in-depth examination of the participatory processes in both regions demonstrates that increased public involvement can positively shape wind energy attitudes. Public involvement strategies must be re-evaluated to reconcile community-proponent tensions and maximize resident decision-making power. Some residents in Kincardine and Prince Edward County are willing to re-evaluate their stance on wind energy projects with more active engagement in planning. \nThese research findings also demonstrate how strained relationships between local communities and the provincial government can impact wind development. An inherent distrust of the provincial government and project planners exists in both study locations. This distrust leads to public unwillingness to accept government-issued wind energy information, shapes wind energy attitudes, and perpetuates misconceptions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".