MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1981537406 · doi:10.2118/173575-ms

One Company's in Situ Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Program: An Industry-Leading Approach

2015· article· en· W1981537406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amit Saxena

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeStewardship (theology)StakeholderBusinessBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementLicenseStakeholder engagementEnvironmental planningCorporationOil sandsWildlife conservationResource (disambiguation)Public relationsFinanceGeographyEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Minimizing and mitigating the environmental impacts of our developments and operations is a very important business driver for Devon Canada Corporation (Devon). Devon takes this responsibility seriously, and believes in maintaining social license to operate, respecting stakeholder interests, and not just meeting, but exceeding, regulatory requirements where it makes sense to do so. Our commitment to the environment is reflected in our corporate policies, which include a Biodiversity and Land Stewardship Policy that provides overarching top-level direction to wildlife, biodiversity and land issues. Wildlife and biodiversity are among the most tangible concerns for stakeholders in Alberta's oil sands region. In 2002, very little was known about wildlife responses to in situ oil sands development. Acknowledging this information deficiency, and recognizing that in situ oil sands development was a long term and incremental commitment, Devon initiated what would become an ongoing In Situ Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Program to monitor wildlife populations, conduct research to fill key data gaps, and mitigate negative impacts to wildlife and biodiversity in and around our project areas. To achieve our vision of minimizing impacts to wildlife in the oil sands region, we have made biologically sound commitments, collaborated with peers and other resource sectors, developed strategic research partnerships, and engaged employees at every level throughout the company in implementation. In its current state, the Program has now been endorsed by regulators as the best-in-industry for such initiatives, and has been recognized with numerous awards for its comprehensiveness, innovation and corporate commitment.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining and Resource Management→French-language works237,207→