MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014460467 · doi:10.1115/ipc2002-27305

Reclamation of National Energy Board Regulated Pipeline Rights of Way: A Life Cycle Approach

2002· article· en· W2014460467 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venue4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanada Energy Regulator
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationMandatePipeline (software)Process (computing)Pipeline transportLegislationAuditBusinessAbandonment (legal)EngineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceAccountingPolitical scienceEnvironmental engineeringLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of its mandate, the National Energy Board (NEB) regulates the construction, operation, and abandonment of interprovincial and international pipelines. The primary legislation which directly and indirectly addresses reclamation of NEB lines are the National Energy Board Act and the associated Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The NEB uses a life cycle approach to pursue appropriate reclamation of disturbed rights of way. Initially, reclamation related issues are addressed at the application stage. Subsequent to the application process, the actual implementation of reclamation measures occurs during construction of the line. Success of reclamation is monitored during the operational life of a line through inspection and auditing procedures, with additional measures being implemented as necessary.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · 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