Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In April 2002, the Brazilian National Environment Council (CONAMA) enacted Resolution 293, which defines the contents and requirements for oil spill response plans for ports, terminals, pipelines and oil platforms. CONAMA Resolution 293 was undoubtedly a landmark in the history of Brazilian planning and preparedness for oil spill accidents as long as it provided a technically consistent reference for elaboration of oil spill response plans based on the identification of spill sources, vulnerability analysis of potentially affected areas, and adequate response organization, procedures and resources. A clause of the Resolution required its review in 5 years after entering into force. To accomplish this requirement, the Ministry of Environment (MMA) opened a public hearing process to collect comments and suggestions for changes. One main contributor in this hearing process was the Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP), which represents the oil and gas industry. IBP created an internal workgroup which discussed proposals for changes in CONAMA Resolution 293 that were subsequently sent to MMA. After the public hearing process, MMA invited a number of institutions to join a workgroup to discuss the received comments and proposed changes. In general, these institutions were mostly the same which participated in the CONAMA Resolution 293 workgroup five years before: IBAMA (federal environmental agency), Maritime Authority, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Mines and Energy, AN? (oil & gas activities regulatory agency), IBP and some state environmental agencies. Proposed changes to CONAMA Resolution 293 were sent from the workgroup to one of the CONAMA technical chambers, which approved the proposal with minor amendments. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the relevant changes in this regulation that will affect facility oil spill response plans in Brazil.
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 | 0.041 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".