Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural gas used to be a relatively Cheap primary energy source, always at a discount to crude oil (on a comparative British thermal unit basis). It gradually evolved into a major resource during the 20th century — reaching a 24 per cent share of global primary energy in 1999. In the year 2000, natural gas prices in the USA rose to unheard‐of highs of $10/million Btu, ushering in a new era, with natural gas at a 120 per cent premium to crude oil. This clearly was a watershed for gas, somehow similar to the 1973‐74 watershed for oil prices. And similarly, any return to the status quo‐ante looks rather improbable, although a number of experts (alongside the International Energy Agency) still believe the 2000 price ‘spike’ to have been “only transitory” The consequences of higher gas prices (at a level equal to crude oil prices on a Btu basis) will be multifaceted and momentous, altering habits and uses in downstream industries and economic sectors, as well as providing added income for major gas‐exporters, such as Russia, Canada and Algeria. Another potential consequence of the 2000 watershed might be to propel US standard prices (such as the ‘Henry Hub’ spot) to international status and gas price‐setter, as the ‘WTI spot’ became an “international benchmark” for crude oils in the post‐1993 era. For the time being, the equality of gas and oil prices has become the new norm; but, in the longer term, a discount of crude oil relative to natural gas might be envisaged, as the latter is a cleaner fuel and emits less carbon dioxide when used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".