Voices on the wind: An analysis of framing, credibility, and fairness in Ontario's wind power development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind energy generation has expanded rapidly in Ontario over the past decade and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Those opposed to wind developments have been left few avenues to express their dissent. The anti-wind movement has a marginal voice in light of broader support for wind development in Ontario, as urban areas host both wind support and the majority of Ontario's population. The ways in which anti-wind groups are framed in public media has an impact on how these groups are viewed. Through the review of 112 newspaper articles, this study identifies the frames applied to wind projects by both anti-wind groups and wind energy advocates and the frames these groups applied to themselves and to their opponents. This research assessed the credibility and accuracy of individual frames. It was found that the frames anti-wind groups use to support their opposition to wind projects are not credible. The frames used by anti-wind groups to criticize wind development are more credible, but are obfuscated by their discredited anti-wind frames. This paper concludes that the anti-wind movement in Ontario has been treated fairly in the development of wind power projects in the province.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".