1. Rank the sources you cited on your infographic from “Most Reliable and Least Biased” to “Least Reliable and Most Biased”. Provide an explanation for your ranking scheme.
Bias Scale = 1 - 10 (10 being extremely biased)
Reliability Scale = 1 - 10 (10 being extremely reliable)
Energy Information Administration
Bias = 1
Reliability = 9
This source reports data for all different kinds of fields of energy, and they make a point to provide just data and not analysis, making this source non biased and very reliable.
International Institute for Sustainable Development
Bias = 2
Reliability = 8
This source gives different information about what is going on in the world of renewable and nonrenewable energy sources, but does not favor a source of energy based on the way their articles are written. The bias is low, and although it is reliable, these article styled entries make me question if they truly hold complete legitimacy.
Duke Energy
Bias = 4
Reliability = 7
Duke Energy is a major solar and renewable energy advocating corporation who have their money invested in different renewable energy programs, meaning they have a definite bias. However they pull research from other primary sources and it causes me to feel they are a reliable source.
New Scientist
Bias = 2
Reliability = 8
This a journalistic science website that reports news about science related issues or solutions. It is a tertiary source, but it draws from data that is legitimate and therefore I feel like I can trust this source for the different reports they create.
World Nuclear Association
Bias = 7
Reliability = 7
This source is very pro nuclear and they are adamant about supporting nothing but nuclear energy as a way to save our earth. That being said, they use accurate data and sources to prove their point and so I find this source to be reliable (however they don’t talk about the cons of going nuclear and so they lose points in my book).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Bias = 3
Reliability = 9
This is an organisation in charge of collecting data on the current running nuclear power plants within the United States, and so they provide reliable data and do their job well.
2. Classify all of the sources cited on your infographic as primary, secondary or tertiary. Explain the rationale for your classification for each source.
Energy Information Administration
This source would be considered primary, as it was raw data coming from tests that were recently conducted and directed by the source itself. It was up to the reader to analyze the data, however the data was still there.
International Institute for Sustainable Development
This source would be considered a secondary source, as it analyzed different information and data coming from other primary sources. They did not conduct the tests to collect the data, but instead allowed for the reader to more easily understand.
Duke Energy
This would be considered a secondary source because of how the source describes the process in which nuclear energy is produced. It is not empirical data, and it shows a much more simple version of a complex process, again making it easier on the reader.
New Scientist
This is a tertiary source, as it was not specific to one genre within nuclear energy, as it instead covered many different topics within the nuclear energy realm. It added data from different primary and even secondary sources, but was more broad in its coverage of this energy field.
World Nuclear Administration
This source is secondary, as it drew from the data collected in death reports through both nuclear and fossil fuel related incidents. By drawing from other sources, this source was able to create a statistic about the comparison of death rates, however the data that was collected from was from other sources.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
This is an example of a primary source. The source constructed a study on major power plants around the United States that were being decommissioned, and combined the data they found to create an average statistic, however they also provided the raw data as well.
3. Read over the Abstract from one of the primary sources you used. If you did not consult a primary source for your infographic, find one that is related to your topic and use it for this question. Who are the authors of this paper, what journal is it published in and when was it published?
One of the primary sources I found, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, used a team of scientists and field workers to eventually become the ‘authors’ of the data which they had collected. Although this data was published directly to their organization’s website, I have found their statistics in other journalistic websites such as New Scientist. It was originally published on the 8th of June in 2015.
Summarize the key points from the abstract.
There were two major key points which the abstract section of this source introduced to the reader. The first being that nuclear energy should be used as a substitute for a more renewable form of energy as soon as the renewable energy can become better designed and more cost efficient overall. Their second point, however, introduced their main idea that nuclear energy being used as a temporary energy source will have its drawbacks and we should be prepared for them. This is where they inject their average dismantling cost data to solidify their point.
Based on this abstract, what do you think the purpose of an abstract is and what information do you expect to find in the abstract of a scientific journal article?
The purpose of an abstract is to do two things. The first is to create a claim that can be backed up by evidence, for example the claim of my primary source was that “Nuclear energy is our only realistic transitional option in order to buy us time for the real production of renewable energy sources”. The second is to summarize all of the major claims that have been already been made and allow for the reader to be able to understand the ‘claim’ through summarization. In an abstract section of a scientific journal article I expect to find the key point restated or summarized and the claim made.
Bias Scale = 1 - 10 (10 being extremely biased)
Reliability Scale = 1 - 10 (10 being extremely reliable)
Energy Information Administration
Bias = 1
Reliability = 9
This source reports data for all different kinds of fields of energy, and they make a point to provide just data and not analysis, making this source non biased and very reliable.
International Institute for Sustainable Development
Bias = 2
Reliability = 8
This source gives different information about what is going on in the world of renewable and nonrenewable energy sources, but does not favor a source of energy based on the way their articles are written. The bias is low, and although it is reliable, these article styled entries make me question if they truly hold complete legitimacy.
Duke Energy
Bias = 4
Reliability = 7
Duke Energy is a major solar and renewable energy advocating corporation who have their money invested in different renewable energy programs, meaning they have a definite bias. However they pull research from other primary sources and it causes me to feel they are a reliable source.
New Scientist
Bias = 2
Reliability = 8
This a journalistic science website that reports news about science related issues or solutions. It is a tertiary source, but it draws from data that is legitimate and therefore I feel like I can trust this source for the different reports they create.
World Nuclear Association
Bias = 7
Reliability = 7
This source is very pro nuclear and they are adamant about supporting nothing but nuclear energy as a way to save our earth. That being said, they use accurate data and sources to prove their point and so I find this source to be reliable (however they don’t talk about the cons of going nuclear and so they lose points in my book).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Bias = 3
Reliability = 9
This is an organisation in charge of collecting data on the current running nuclear power plants within the United States, and so they provide reliable data and do their job well.
2. Classify all of the sources cited on your infographic as primary, secondary or tertiary. Explain the rationale for your classification for each source.
Energy Information Administration
This source would be considered primary, as it was raw data coming from tests that were recently conducted and directed by the source itself. It was up to the reader to analyze the data, however the data was still there.
International Institute for Sustainable Development
This source would be considered a secondary source, as it analyzed different information and data coming from other primary sources. They did not conduct the tests to collect the data, but instead allowed for the reader to more easily understand.
Duke Energy
This would be considered a secondary source because of how the source describes the process in which nuclear energy is produced. It is not empirical data, and it shows a much more simple version of a complex process, again making it easier on the reader.
New Scientist
This is a tertiary source, as it was not specific to one genre within nuclear energy, as it instead covered many different topics within the nuclear energy realm. It added data from different primary and even secondary sources, but was more broad in its coverage of this energy field.
World Nuclear Administration
This source is secondary, as it drew from the data collected in death reports through both nuclear and fossil fuel related incidents. By drawing from other sources, this source was able to create a statistic about the comparison of death rates, however the data that was collected from was from other sources.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
This is an example of a primary source. The source constructed a study on major power plants around the United States that were being decommissioned, and combined the data they found to create an average statistic, however they also provided the raw data as well.
3. Read over the Abstract from one of the primary sources you used. If you did not consult a primary source for your infographic, find one that is related to your topic and use it for this question. Who are the authors of this paper, what journal is it published in and when was it published?
One of the primary sources I found, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, used a team of scientists and field workers to eventually become the ‘authors’ of the data which they had collected. Although this data was published directly to their organization’s website, I have found their statistics in other journalistic websites such as New Scientist. It was originally published on the 8th of June in 2015.
Summarize the key points from the abstract.
There were two major key points which the abstract section of this source introduced to the reader. The first being that nuclear energy should be used as a substitute for a more renewable form of energy as soon as the renewable energy can become better designed and more cost efficient overall. Their second point, however, introduced their main idea that nuclear energy being used as a temporary energy source will have its drawbacks and we should be prepared for them. This is where they inject their average dismantling cost data to solidify their point.
Based on this abstract, what do you think the purpose of an abstract is and what information do you expect to find in the abstract of a scientific journal article?
The purpose of an abstract is to do two things. The first is to create a claim that can be backed up by evidence, for example the claim of my primary source was that “Nuclear energy is our only realistic transitional option in order to buy us time for the real production of renewable energy sources”. The second is to summarize all of the major claims that have been already been made and allow for the reader to be able to understand the ‘claim’ through summarization. In an abstract section of a scientific journal article I expect to find the key point restated or summarized and the claim made.