MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986673061

The Question Queue: The federal government wants to know so much more about a proposed nuclear waste site near Lake Huron, it seems it will never get the OK

2017· article· en· W6986673061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyAgency (philosophy)Nuclear powerGovernment (linguistics)Radioactive wasteIndigenousProcess (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario Power Generation’s proposal for a deep geologic repository (DGR) to store nuclear waste near Lake Huron faces significant scrutiny from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The agency has demanded detailed responses from OPG regarding alternative sites, potential environmental impacts, and construction effects. Questions include concerns about emissions, seismic regulations, and the impact on indigenous communities and local ecosystems. The agency also requires more comprehensive risk assessments for various scenarios, including accidents and environmental degradation. The approval process is complicated by these extensive requirements, potentially delaying the project beyond upcoming federal and provincial elections.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207