MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W146319114 · doi:10.29173/alr259

The Legal Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage in Alberta

2008· article· en· W146319114 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Offshore Engineering Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityGreenhouse gasCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Context (archaeology)NoveltyOrder (exchange)Kyoto ProtocolEnergy lawFossil fuelBusinessEnvironmental economicsLawEnvironmental lawWaste managementEconomicsPolitical scienceClimate changeEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are gaining currency as a means of disposing of greenhouse gases and helping states meet their international obligations under such instruments as the Kyoto Protocol. However, while the utility of these technologies has become increasingly evident, their relative novelty has meant that the legal issues surrounding their application have remained largely unresolved. This article examines the property, regulatory, and liability issues associated with CCS in an Alberta context. The authors draw upon existing law and practice in relation to analogous activities including enhanced oil recovery, acid gas disposal, and natural gas storage to identify changes and clarifications that might be desirable in order to develop an appropriate legal framework for CCS in Alberta.

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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