MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Canadian Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling: Lessons from the Gulf of Mexico

2011· article· en· W1495219435 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

VenueReview of European Community & International Environmental Law · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffshore drillingSubmarine pipelineArcticJurisdictionThe arcticOffshore oil and gasDrillingOil explorationEnvironmental scienceOil drillingEnvironmental protectionFossil fuelEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementOceanographyPetroleum engineeringEngineeringGeologyLawPolitical scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's National Energy Board has undertaken a review of general safety and environmental protection requirements for Arctic offshore drilling within the country's jurisdiction. The review is focusing, among other things, on the requirement for same season relief well (SSRW) capacity for Arctic offshore operators, and whether proposed alternatives are sufficiently robust to allow removal of the SSRW requirement. Given the significant threat offshore drilling poses to the fragile Arctic ecosystem, safety requirements must be strengthened, not weakened. The SSRW capability requirement should be maintained, and other policies, regulations and requirements ought to be strengthened and improved.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.178 · 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