MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035847107 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.200

U.S. Department of Energy’s Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program: Overview

2009· article· en· W2035847107 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationCarbon capture and storage (timeline)General partnershipEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelScale (ratio)BusinessGreenhouse gasCapital costEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEngineeringWaste managementClimate changeGeographyCarbon dioxideFinanceCartographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has formed a nationwide network of seven regional partnerships to help determine the best approaches for capturing and permanently storing gases that can contribute to global climate change. The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) are tasked with determining the most suitable technologies, regulations, and infrastructure for carbon capture, transport, and storage in their areas of the country and parts of Canada. The seven partnerships include more than 350 state agencies, universities, national laboratories, private companies, and environmental organizations, spanning 42 states, two Indian nations, and four Canadian provinces. The Regional Partnerships initiative is being implemented in three phases: Characterization Phase (2003–2005): The objective was to collect data on CO2 sources and sinks and develop the human capital to support and enable future carbon sequestration field tests and deployments. The completion of this Phase was marked by release of the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada-Version 1 which included a common methodology for capacity assessment and reported over 3,000GT of storage capacity in saline formations, depleted oil and gas fields, and coal seams. Validation Phase (2005–2009): The objective is to plan and implement small-scale (<1 million tons CO2) field testing of storage technologies in areas determined to be favorable for carbon storage. The partnerships are currently conducting over 20 small-scale geologic field tests and 11 terrestrial field tests. Development Phase (2008–2018): The primary objective is the development of large-scale (>1 million tons of CO2) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects, which will demonstrate that large volumes of CO2 can be injected safely, permanently, and economically into geologic formations representative of large storage capacity. Even though the RCSP Program is being implemented in three phases, it should be viewed as an integrated whole, with many of the goals and objectives transitioning from one phase to the next. Accomplishments and results from the Characterization Phase have helped to refine goals and activities in the Validation and Deployment Phases. The RCSP Program encourages and requires open information sharing among its members by sponsoring both general workshops and meetings to facilitate information exchange. Although each RCSP has its own objectives and field tests, mutual cooperation has been an important part of the Program thus far. The primary goal of the RCSP initiative is to promote the development of a regional framework and the infrastructure necessary to validate and deploy carbon sequestration technologies within each Partnership’s region.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.255 · 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