Channelling sensitivity: the production of justification for shale gas development through the English planning system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis analyses the participation of the environmental NGO Friends of the Earth (FoE) in a planning inquiry into the company Cuadrilla’s appeal against Lancashire County Council’s decision to refuse planning permission to their proposed shale gas exploration sites at Roseacre Wood and Preston New Road. Participant observation, document analysis and video analysis were employed to chart the treatment of FoE’s arguments at the inquiry. Conceptually, the thesis is interested in the notion of justification, and in particular Stirling’s insight that appraisal processes can, through their design and conduct, be conditioned toward providing justification for particular options (Stirling 1994; Stirling 2008). Four such conditioning influences – termed ‘forms of closure’ here - are found to be operating through the design and conduct of this inquiry and channelling it toward the production of justification for the appeals in question and shale development more broadly. These forms of closure each render the inquiry insensitive to certain arguments and matters of concern raised by FoE by either blunt procedural exclusion or by displaying insensitivity in the conduct of appraisal itself. This thesis builds on existing work on the necessity of and capacity for planning appraisal processes on fracking in the UK to accommodate sceptical public views. In particular, this study contributes fine-grain detail on how participating publics and experts are treated in practice within planning, and makes clear the key influence of prior commitments at the broader level of Government policy. This study also extends the concept of justification by focusing on the ‘downstream’ location of planning appraisal and by considering the relationship between framings of fracking and planning decision-making.
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 | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".