MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531397676 · doi:10.11575/prism/34341

Alberta's Oil and Gas Boom Fuels Land-Use Conflicts – But Should the EUB be Taking the Heat?

2005· article· en· W1531397676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven A. Kennett, Michael M. Wenig

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFossil fuelBoomEnvironmental scienceAlternative fuelsNatural resource economicsWaste managementPetroleum engineeringGeologyEconomicsEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringDiesel fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) is at the centre of a growing 'storm' of land-use conflicts arising from oil and gas activities. The public typically looks to the EUB to resolve those conflicts, because of the EUB's role as the province's primary regulator of oil and gas operations. However, the EUB is poorly suited to handling this role because: (1) there is a lack of adequate, high level policy and planning to guide the EUB's decisions; (2) the EUB's 'public interest' determinations are skewed by Alberta Energy's issuance of mineral rights; and (3) the EUB lacks authority to manage the cumulative effects of all activities on all types of land bases. For these reasons, the public should look to Cabinet and the Legislature, as well as the EUB, for resolution of land use conflicts.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207