MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972967385 · doi:10.7122/150982-ms

The Case for CCS as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

2012· article· en· W1972967385 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Management Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Industrial Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClean Development MechanismMechanism (biology)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) marketplace is lacking standardization and therefore the ability to afford CCS projects consideration as Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM), under UNFCCC. There is an international push to change this and recognize CCS as a CDM. If recognition occurs, then the ultimate goal of CCS as a CDM may be realized. This process is beginning with a bi-national effort between the United States and Canada. CSA Standards, a leading developer of standards, codes and personnel certification programs, and the International Performance Assessment Centre for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (IPAC-CO2 Research Inc.) have partnered to develop a bi-national American-Canadian carbon capture and storage (CCS) standard for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide (GSC). The GSC standard will be developed by leading North American experts and, upon completion, will be the world's first formally recognized CCS standard. It is intended that the new standard will be used as a basis for the promotion of international standards through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is expected that ISO standardization and certification will follow. Introduction It is safe to say that Carbon Capture and Storage (or Sequestration) (CCS) is an essential part of the climate change portfolio. It is also safe to say that the vast majority of those in the CCS industry believe that use and acceptance of CCS has to be expanded. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is leading the way in the short term doing the early heavy lifting. The early entry of CCS by EOR is limited however to the EOR producing regions of the US and Canada. EOR is also limited to funding or economics that make the use of CCS possible - better put - in the short term, CCS can't exist without EOR. In order to expand the acceptance, and more importantly the deployment of CCS beyond EOR, pilot, and first of a kind installations - and more importantly to deploy CCS in developing economies - CCS needs some help. The Tenth Annual Carbon Capture & Sequestration Conference in Pittsburgh, PA was aptly titled: Building on a Decade of Progress to Assure Commercial Deployment. Many in attendance suggest that CCS's much needed assistance may come in the form of CCS as part of a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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