MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W180272432

Law of the Sea and LNG: Cross-Border Law and Politics over Head Harbor Passage, The

2012· article· en· W180272432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Kraska

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada-United States law journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefied natural gasPort (circuit theory)BayPoliticsLawSovereigntyState (computer science)Territorial watersPolitical scienceEngineeringNatural gasCivil engineeringInternational law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States and Canada are at an impasse over plans by American developers to introduce a new supply of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) into the United States through proposed port terminals along the Saint Croix River, which runs between the Province of New Brunswick and the State of Maine. The disagreement implicates the law and politics surrounding a new source of clean energy for the region, maritime security, Native American tribal sovereignty, marine environmental protection in the unique Bay of Fundy, bilateral economic relations, and high-level diplomacy between Ottawa and Washington. Ships, including LNG tankers, bound for United States ports on the Maine side of the river may reach port only via transit through Canadian waters. Thus, without the cooperation or at least acquiescence of Canada, the terminals and ports of Maine along Passamaquoddy Bay, are entirely zone-locked — meaning that without access to the Canadian territorial sea of Passamaquoddy Bay, the ports are locked to maritime traffic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.022
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada-United States law journalSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207