Place Impacts of Technological Hazards: A Case Study of Community Conflict as Health Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a qualitative case study, this paper describes the everyday experience of conflict as a serious impact of noxious facilities. It describes intra-community conflict over two existing waste facilities (a regional landfill and a low-level hazardous waste facility) in Ryley, Alberta, Canada. Twenty-seven in-depth face-to-face interviews and one focus group reveal deep conflict presented as frustration, anger, social isolation and strained social relations between locals who ‘support’ the facilities as a means of bolstering the local economy and those who do not (mainly long-time resident farmers). Although the type of hazard exposure (i.e. existing facilities) is important for explaining why conflict developed and became entrenched, it is argued that the nature of community, and in particular differences in ways of life, are also critical determinants. The findings are compared to theory and other case studies concerning why social conflict develops over technological hazards. Implications for environmental impact assessment and environmental appeals are discussed, as well as compensation as one avenue for equitably reducing conflict.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".