The Canadian oil sands: environmental, economic, social, health, and other impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As world energy demands increase, so will the exploration and exploitation of alternative energy resources. The present level of energy generation cannot meet the needs of future generations if the pace of population growth and energy consumption continues at the current rate. While some unconventional energy sources are still in research and development phase, others have been effectively implemented. The impacts of different energy operations are still being debated, with respect to environmental, social, economic, and health effects. The definition of sustainable development adopted by United Nations (UN) uses the expression "meets the needs of the present" to indicate the required development by a current generation to maintain its standard of living while minimizing environmental, economic, social impacts. Large industrial developments will affect a range of stakeholders, and may entail cultural and political change. The level of impacts and their implications depends on many characteristics of the development, such as its size, production rate, duration of exploitation, processes used (including treatment of waste streams), and regulatory standards. While local communities, businesses and surrounding areas are first expected to be impacted, certain developments can attract global attention. Canadian oil sands developments are of interest to oil producers because of the size of the proven reserves; but the scale of development and the perceived enduring impacts are of concern to different stakeholders. This work presents a discussion and analysis of the economic, social, health, and other impacts of current operations in Canadian oil sands that are of concern to different stakeholders, including some uncertainties in levels and persistence of Sustainable Development and Planning VI 575
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".