MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479703207 · doi:10.4043/22061-ms

U.S. Geological Survey Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal

2011· article· en· W1479703207 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSubmarine pipelinePetroleumGeological surveyResource (disambiguation)GeologyNatural resourceFossil fuelThe arcticOceanographyMineral resource classificationPhysical geographyGeographyPaleontologyGeochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Among the greatest uncertainties in future energy supply is the amount of oil and gas yet to be found in the Arctic. Using a probabilistic geology-based methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey has assessed the area north of the Arctic Circle. The Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA) consists of three parts:Mapping the sedimentary sequences of the Arctic (Grantz and others 2009),Geologically based estimation of undiscovered technically recoverable petroleum (Gautier and others 2009, discussed in this presentation) andEconomic appraisal of the cost of delivering the undiscovered resources to major markets (also reported at this conference by White and others). We estimate that about 30% of the world's undiscovered gas and about 13% of the world's undiscovered oil may be present in the Arctic, mostly offshore under less than 500m of water. Billion BOE-plus accumulations of gas and oil are predicted at a 50% probability in the Kara Sea, Barents Sea, offshore East and West Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. On a BOE basis, undiscovered natural gas is three times more abundant than oil in the Arctic and is concentrated in Russian territory. Oil resources, while critically important to the interests of Arctic countries, are probably not sufficient to significantly shift the current geographic patterns of world oil production. Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed an assessment of the yet-to-find, technically recoverable petroleum in the Arctic. The Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA) provides probabilistic estimates of the numbers, sizes, and aggregate volumes of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids in undiscovered accumulations (Gautier et al. 2009). Most discoveries will probably be made on the continental shelves, under less than 500 meters of water. The CARA is a geologically study of the potential for new discoveries of conventional oil and/or gas in accumulations larger than 50 million barrels of oil or 300 billion cubic feet of natural gas north of the Arctic Circle. So-called unconventional resources such as coal bed methane, heavy oil and bitumen, and gas hydrates were not included in the study. Before the assessment could be conducted, it was necessary to compile a consistent map of the sedimentary basins of the Arctic, delineated according to geologic age, tectonic history, thickness of sedimentary strata, and structural style (Grantz et al. 2009). Using the new map, the Arctic was subdivided into 69 geologically defined subsets called Assessment Units (AUs); the AU boundaries are available as digital shape files online (USGS 2009).

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.158 · 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