MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7079497189 · doi:10.26108/v802-6574

Exploring community engagement in tidal energy development: Issues and challenges

2017· article· en· W7079497189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyStakeholder engagementStakeholderCommunity engagementTidal powerEnvironmental impact of the energy industryEnergy transitionNova scotiaEnergy policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renewable energy development has become increasingly important in Canada over the last decade. The establishment of renewable energy targets to address greenhouse gas emissions has been the primary catalyst for this development. Canada has recently been recognized as a world leader in the production and use of renewable energy (Natural Resources Canada, 2014). Nova Scotia, like many other provinces, has set a renewable energy target. This increased reliance on renewable energy, and tidal energy, has called for the industry to practice community engagement. Community engagement though, has many issues and challenges to be considered. The purpose of this research is to better understand key issues and challenges in stakeholder and community engagement in relation to tidal energy development in Nova Scotia. Qualitative research in the form of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Nova Scotia tidal energy industry professionals explored key issues in stakeholder and community engagement. Results provide insights into key issues in four thematic areas that include role of government, exploring community benefits, First Nations and stakeholders, and engagement principles and practices.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.022 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207