THE TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY DEBATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keystone XL is a proposed pipeline stretching from Alberta, Canada’s tar sand oil reserves to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, and would have a carrying capacity of 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. The Keystone project has evoked heated debate over the environmental prudence, economic viability, and international politics of implementing the plans. Thousands of demonstrators concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline gathered near the White House in opposition of the pipeline in November of 2011. While supporters of the pipeline engaged in media blitz to promote their view that the pipeline could provide both thousands of permanent jobs and oil from an allied neighbor. This Note attempts to balance the positive aspects of the project with the negative ramifications of its implementation. While each side of the debate has merit, and neither side can agree on the prudence or imprudence of the project, this Note attempts to flesh out the good that the Keystone XL could accomplish, the bad effects the pipeline could cause, and reconcile some of the ugly debates surrounding Keystone XL.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".