Bibliographic record
Abstract
A petroleum industry has existed in New Brunswick for over 150 years but recent exploration for shale gas has unleashed an unprecedented wave of protest and opposition. This opposition is an international phenomenon that has followed the relatively new shale gas extraction industry from its origins in Texas, across North America and Europe. On the one hand, the extraction of natural gas from shale has increased reserves to the point where North America could become selfsufficient; on the other hand, opponents point to completely new hazards associated with this form of gas production. New Brunswick has the opportunity to devise a regulatory (and enforcement) regime that could minimize risk and maximize the benefits of a shale gas extraction industry. Public engagement in establishing this regime is essential, but the details, as this essay will illustrate, must be based on a rational and factual assessment of risk. Resume L’industrie petroliere existe au Nouveau-Brunswick depuis plus de 150 ans, mais la recente exploration du gaz de schiste a dechaine une vague de protestation et d’opposition sans precedent. Cette opposition est un phenomene international qui a poursuivi l’industrie relativement nouvelle de l’extraction du gaz de schiste, depuis son origine au Texas, dans toute l’Amerique du Nord et jusqu’en Europe. D’un cote, l’extraction du gaz naturel a partir du schiste a accru les reserves au point que l’Amerique du Nord pourrait devenir autosuffisante; d’autre part, les opposants denoncent des risques entierement nouveaux lies a cette forme de production de gaz. Le Nouveau-Brunswick a l’occasion de mettre au point un regime de reglementation (et de mise en œuvre) qui pourrait reduire le risque et maximiser les avantages d’une industrie de l’extraction du gaz de schiste. La participation du public pour mettre ce regime en place est essentielle, mais les details, comme cet article le demontrera, doivent etre fondes sur une evaluation rationnelle et factuelle des risques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".