MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201269595 · doi:10.29173/alr160

Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Energy Lawyers

2010· article· en· W201269595 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Linda Smith, Marie H. Buchinski, And Deirdre A. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureVariety (cybernetics)Energy lawCommissionPublic administrationPolitical scienceKey (lock)BusinessLawEnvironmental lawComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article identifies recent regulatory and legislative developments of interest to oil and gas lawyers. The authors survey a variety of subject areas, examining decisions of key regulatory agencies such as the National Energy Board, the Ontario Energy Board, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, the Alberta Surface Rights Board, and the Alberta Utilities Commission, as well as related court decisions. In addition, the authors review a variety of key policy and legislative changes from the federal and provincial levels.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207