Economic Development Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misconceptions about the economic development benefits of the oil and gas industry to Newfoundland and Labrador are common throughout the province.All too often benefits are seen to be limited to St. John's, to be short term, and to be manifest strictly in the form of revenues to government, that can then be allocated to other social and economic investments.Oil and gas is seldom seen as a sector which creates competitive businesses in the province, which can sell their products and expertise into other markets.It is seldom seen as a sector which generates sustainable competitive advantage in communities and regions, with skilled work forces, specialized infrastructure, and advanced research and development capabilities.These views were particularly evident during the Harris Centre's four regional workshops and a provincial conference in the fall of 2004, "A Symposium on Growing the Economy of Newfoundland and Labrador." 1 When asked to list priorities for economic development, none of the industry, community and government stakeholders noted the oil and gas sector in the top five priorities, a trend notable in other conferences, workshops and discussions on economic development in the province.At the same time, many of the individuals and organizations already involved in the industry have not connected with communities, organizations and businesses outside the areas where oil and gas activity is already present.There was a need to bring these two worlds together.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".