Exploring Public Discourse About Spent Nuclear Fuel Management on Twitter

References

• G. FREEZE et al., “Integration of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” SAND2021-10444, Sandia National Laboratories (2021).
   Google Scholar
• P. SLOVIC, The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, London (2000).
   Google Scholar
• W. POORTINGA and N. PIDGEON, “Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation,” Risk Anal., 35, 1, 39 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• K. GUPTA et al., “Exploring Aggregate Vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States,” Rev. Policy Res., 37, 4, 491 (2020).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. P. TULER and T. WEBLER, “Controversy and Consensus in the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Radioactive Waste,” Energy Res. Social Sci., 95, 102906 (2023); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. WEBLER and S. P. TULER, “Unpacking the Idea of Democratic Community Consent-Based Siting for Energy Infrastructure,” J. Risk Res., 24, 1, 94 (2021); http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1843068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “Consent-Based Siting: Request for Information Comment Summary and Analysis,” Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (2022).
   Google Scholar
• H. JENKINS-SMITH et al., “Designing a Process for Consent-Based Siting of Used Nuclear Fuel,” Bridge, 42, 3, 28 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• K. GUPTA et al., “Tracking the Nuclear ‘Mood’ in the United States: Introducing a Long Term Measure of Public Opinion about Nuclear Energy Using Aggregate Survey Data,” Energy Policy, 133, 110888 (2019); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. JERIT and J. BARABAS, “Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment,” J. Politics, 74, 3, 672 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. TVERSKY and D. KAHNEMAN, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211, 4481, 453 (1981); http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. E. KASPERSON et al., “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Anal., 8, 2, 177 (1988); http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. M. ENTMAN, “Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power,” J. Commun., 57, 1, 163 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. HEINRICH and M. CROZIER, “Effects of Risk Framing on Earthquake Risk Perception: Lifetime Frequencies Enhance the Recognition of Risk,” Int. J. Disaster Reduct., 13, 145 (2015); http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.003.
   Google Scholar
• J. FELLENOR et al., “The Social Amplification of Risk on Twitter: The Case of Ash Dieback Disease in the United Kingdom,” J. Risk Res., 21, 10, 1163 (2018); http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1281339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. MERAZ and Z. PAPACHARISSI, “Networked Gatekeeping and Networked Framing on #Egypt,” Int. J. Press/Politics, 18, 2, 138 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1940161212474472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. D. CONOVER et al., “Partisan Asymmetries in Online Political Activity,” EPJ Data Sci., 1, 6, 1 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjds6.
   Google Scholar
• D. LAZER et al., “Computational Social Science,” Science, 323, 5915, 721 (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. HERMIDA, “Power Plays on Social Media,” Soc. Media Soc., 1, 1, 205630511558034 (2015); http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305115580340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. JACKSON and B. FOUCAULT WELLES, “#ferguson Is Everywhere: Initiators in Emerging Counterpublic Networks,” Inf. Commun. Soc., 19, 397 (2016); http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1106571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. VICARI, “Twitter and Non-Elites: Interpreting Power Dynamics in the Life Story of the (#)BRCA Twitter Stream,” Soc. Media + Soc., 3, 3, 205630511773322 (2017); http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305117733224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. BRESLIN et al., “‘Affective Publics’: Performing Trust on Danish Twitter During the COVID-19 Lockdown,” Curr. Anthropol., 63, 2, 211 (2022); http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719645.
   Google Scholar
• S. MERAZ, “Hashtag Wars and Networked Framing: The Private/Public Networked Protest Repertoires of Occupy on Twitter,” Between the Public and Private in Mobile Communication, A. S. TELLERIA, Ed., p. 303, Routledge, New York (2017).
   Google Scholar
• Z. TUFEKCI, “Big Questions for Social Media Big Data; Representativeness, Validity, and Other Methodological Pitfalls,” Proc. 8th Int. AAAI Conf. on Weblogs and Social Media, p. 505, Palo Alto, California, AAAI Press (2014).
   Google Scholar
• Z. C. STEINERT-THRELKELD, Twitter as Data, Cambridge University Press, New York (2018).
   Google Scholar
• A. JUNGHERR et al., “Digital Trace Data in the Study of Public Opinion: An Indicator of Attention Toward Politics Rather than Political Support,” Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., 35, 3, 336 (2017); http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439316631043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. T. RIPBERGER et al., “Social Media and Severe Weather: Do Tweets Provide a Valid Indicator of Public Attention to Severe Weather Risk Communication,” Weather Clim. Soc., 6, 4, 520 (2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00028.1.
   Google Scholar
• “ Issuance of Materials License No. SNM-2515 for the WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Docket No. 72-1050),” Transmissal Letter, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2021).
   Google Scholar
• C. WEIBLE et al., “Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions,” Policy Stud. J., 48, 4, 1054 (2020); http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psj.12360.
   Google Scholar
• K. GUPTA et al., “Discourse Network Analysis of Nuclear Narratives,” Narratives and the Policy Process: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework, M. D. JONES, M. K. MCBETH, and E. A. SHANAHAN, Eds., pp. 13–38, Montana State University Library, Bozeman, Montana (2022).
   Google Scholar
• F. BAUMGARTNER and B. JONES, Agenda and Instability in American Politics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois (1993).
   Google Scholar
• P. SABATIER and H. JENKINS-SMITH, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment,” Theories of the Policy Process, P. SABATIER, Ed., Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado (1999).
   Google Scholar
• A. L. BARABÁSI, Network Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016).
   Google Scholar
• M. E. NEWMAN and M. GIRVAN, “Finding and Evaluating Community Structure in Networks,” Phys. Rev. E, 69, 2, 026113 (2004); http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• V. D. BLONDEL et al., “Fast Unfolding Communities in Large Networks,” J. Stat. Mech., P10008, 10, 1 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• M. SMITH et al., “Mapping Twitter Topic Networks: From Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters,” Pew Research Center (2014).
   Google Scholar