MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039914135

Nuclear after Paris: any clearer?

2017· article· en· W7039914135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerNuclear energy policyGreenhouse gasQuarter (Canadian coin)Renewable energyClimate changeEnergy policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One might have expected that the Paris Conference of Parties meeting (COP21) on climate change in December of last year might have placed a particular focus on nuclear power. For some years France has generated a higher proportion of its power from nuclear than any other country. This French version of Germany's Energiewende – tournant énergétique perhaps? – came along a quarter of a century before Germany’s and, if judged in carbon reduction terms at least, was notably more successful. In comparison with its neighbour, Germany's energy and environmental policy (set out in the 1991 and 2000 Renewable Energy Acts), had had limited success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even before the 2011 post-Fukushima decision to close its nuclear plants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207