Social Impact Assessment of the Proposed Dodds-Roundhill Coal Gasification Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project report was completed by 14 graduate and undergraduate students in a social impact assessment course (AREC 450-550) during the Winter Term, January to April, 2009. The overall goal of this project was to learn specific concepts and methods for social impact assessment by undertaking such an assessment for the proposed Dodds-Roundhill Coal Gasification project (Southeast of Edmonton, Alberta). The social impact assessment is composed of four major components: (1) scoping of relevant social indicators, (2) social impacts within municipalities, (3) social impacts within the farming region, and (4) a comparative case study of social impacts. Together, the four project reports provide insights into the potential social impacts from the proposed coal gasification project in the Dodd-Roundhill region. In each project, students identified opportunities and challenges in conducting research. These insights may be useful in the development of monitoring frameworks and long-term evaluation processes with regard to this project. Also, each project utilized a variety of methods for social impact assessment and the learning from these methods may be useful for assessment practitioners as they work with communities to identify social impacts in other locales.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".