Explaining the Maintenance of Low Concern Near a Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses local small town residents’ concerns about risk and safety near a hazardous waste facility at Swan Hills, Alberta, Canada. The majority of the residents studied outwardly express that they have low concern about the facility. The purposes are to both elaborate existing theory that potentially explains low concern and to explore new explanations of low concern in everyday life. Theories or concepts which potentially explain expressed low concern are start-points for this qualitative case study. These include: economic risk theory, psychometric risk theory, cultural risk theory, cognitive dissonance (threat denial), community identity and stigma, and risk attenuation. Thirtyeight in-depth resident interviews involving views of facility risks, as well as community life, are used to better understand the social construction of risk. It is found that despite the fact that 31 residents outwardly insist they have no or low concern about facility risks when first prompted, 11 actually do show latent concerns when probed further, expressed as uncertainty, reservations and doubt. It is argued that juxtaposing the views of insiders against those perceived to be held by outsiders furthers understanding of why facility concern is rarely expressed in such a community. There is a heightened sense of pride and positive community identity manifest as a defensive reaction by insider residents to outsiders who are perceived to hold negative, stigmatizing views of the facility as well as the town. Implications relating to community and industry vigilance as well as the impacts of outsiders sensationalising risk are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".