The Oil and Gas Discourse from the Perspective of the Canadian and Albertan Governments, Non-Governmental Organizations and the Oil and Gas Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three of the major players in the discussion of the production of oil and gas are: (1) government; (2) the oil and gas industry and (3) non-governmental organizations (NGOs). A comparison of contributions from these three sources using a list of positive and negative words from the General Inquirer Category Listings showed that industry provided a very positive message about the production and consumption of oil and gas that is generally reinforced by government whereas NGOs advocated for a reduction in the use of oil and gas. Messages delivered by each player are focused on the same topics in either a positive or negative way and are often contradictory. The authors submit to be properly informed the public must consider all the sources in order to avoid bias. A mind map is presented in a supplementary file which summarizes information from each source in a comprehensive way. This approach can be used by consumers when considering the choice of using oil and gas and can be extended to the discourse beyond Canada.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".