MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034373106 · doi:10.3720/japt.70.157

CANADA : a petroleum superpower with oil sands as conventional resources

2005· article· en· W2034373106 on OpenAlexaffabout
Akihisa Takahashi, Kiyoshi Ogino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsCanada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsPetroleumOil reservesUnconventional oilPetroleum industryFossil fuelNatural gasPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental protectionBusinessEnvironmental scienceGeologyAsphaltEngineeringWaste managementGeographyArchaeologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount of the proved remaining reserves of crude oil in Canada is estimated to be 179 billion barrels including oil sands, which takes the second place in the world after Saudi Arabia. As more than one third of the crude oil production in Canada are from oil sands, it can be considered that oil sands are no longer mere unconventional resources. It is worth noting oil sands industries in Canada, which plan to expand or start commercial in-situ production projects and seek the opportunity of its exporting diversity.Natural gas in Canada, which controls the operating cost of the oil sands projects, is also the key of the Canadian oil companies. Remaining reserves of natural gas in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin is still abundant and there are several additional opportunities such as the coal bed methane and the northern pipelines.With oil sands and conventional petroleum resources, Canadian oil business can be a part of the portfolio of the foreign companies now and in the future with its uniqueness in lower country risk, developed infrastructures, and stable markets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum TechnologySame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207