Rethinking Nuclear Energy and Democracy after 09/11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quarter of a century ago, nuclear policy was the dominating issue in Swedish politics. There was a strong public opinion in favour of doing without nuclear power, but also a strong coalition of the electricity intensive industry and their suppliers in favour of nuclear expansion. The anti-nuclear movement was dispersed by a national referendum, presenting three alternatives, all including statements of future nuclear decommissioning. After the referendum nuclear investment continued so that Sweden produced more electricity nuclear per capita then any other country in the world. The over capacity that followed resulted in electricity prices so low that the last reactor investments were clearly unprofitable. As competition was introduced, and electricity prices fell further, not even avoidable costs at the older plants could be covered. At this moment, parliament decided to close one of the oldest reactors with highest avoidable costs, and to pay a large economic compensation, approximately € 1 billion, to the owner. At the same time the decision taken by the parliament after the referendum to close all plants when they had operated for 25 years was revoked. There is little active support for a continuation of this phase-out strategy. The current proposition from
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".