MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W184517050 · doi:10.2172/909272

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

2006· report· en· W184517050 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth Nemeth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)General partnershipSoftware deploymentAction planWork (physics)Carbon sequestrationBusinessGreenhouse gasEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyEngineeringFinanceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership's (SECARB) Phase I program focused on promoting the development of a framework and infrastructure necessary for the validation and commercial deployment of carbon sequestration technologies. The SECARB program, and its subsequent phases, directly support the Global Climate Change Initiative's goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by the year 2012. Work during the project's two-year period was conducted within a ''Task Responsibility Matrix''. The SECARB team was successful in accomplishing its tasks to define the geographic boundaries of the region; characterize the region; identify and address issues for technology deployment; develop public involvement and education mechanisms; identify the most promising capture, sequestration, and transport options; and prepare action plans for implementation and technology validation activity. Milestones accomplished during Phase I of the project are listed below: (1) Completed preliminary identification of geographic boundaries for the study (FY04, Quarter 1); (2) Completed initial inventory of major sources and sinks for the region (FY04, Quarter 2); (3) Completed initial development of plans for GIS (FY04, Quarter 3); (4) Completed preliminary action plan and assessment for overcoming public perception issues (FY04, Quarter 4); (5) Assessed safety, regulatory and permitting issues (FY05, Quarter 1); (6) Finalized inventory of major sources/sinks and refined GIS algorithms (FY05, Quarter 2); (7) Refined public involvement and education mechanisms in support of technology development options (FY05, Quarter 3); and (8) Identified the most promising capture, sequestration and transport options and prepared action plans (FY05, Quarter 4).

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.029

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→