Comparative Pipeline Politics: Oil Sands Pipeline Controversies in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, energy policy has become increasingly controversial in Canada and the United States, with Canada’s oil sands emerging as a major flashpoint of controversy. Canada’s oil sands have been the engine driving the Canadian economic growth over the past decade, and have become an increasingly important part of US oil supply. However, the intensive extraction process has significant environmental impacts in terms of water quantity and quality, land use disturbance, and air pollution including greenhouse gas emissions. This paper will compare energy-environment policy and governance in Canada and the United States through a case study of two controversial oil sands pipelines: Keystone XL to the US Gulf Coast, and Northern Gateway to British Columbia’s West Coast. Both cases have become nationally prominent and been front-page news as a result of conflicting concerns over jobs, energy security, access to markets, the environmental risk of pipelines (and tankers in the BC case), and greenhouse gases. President Obama became directly involved in the US decision, provoking conflict with a Republican controlled House of Representatives. With Canadian environmentalists and many affected First Nations adamantly opposed, Canada’s prime minister has actively supported the Northern Gateway pipeline and his Natural Resources minister has referred to it as “nation-building, ” and the pipeline has emerged as a major
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".