Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since 1979, Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and other Canadian authorities have been releasing reserves estimates based on the report of the Joint Task Force on Uniform Reserves Terminology to the Inter-Provincial Advisory Committee on Energy (IPACE). This report, while including terms related to petroleum types and recovery methods, defined three main resource/reserve terms; Initial Volume In-Place, Established Reserves (both Initial and Remaining), and Ultimate Potential. While the IPACE terminology is a simple and useful system, and is well suited to conventional pools, it is not as well suited to continuous accumulations, especially in classifying in-place quantities that are currently being developed from those that have been or those that might be developed in the future. Additionally, its definition of established includes a quantity of less certainty that is not well defined and has been interpreted in several ways. With the increasing importance of unconventional resources, the introduction of newer classification systems by Canadian and international authorities, and the evolving nature of its business, the ERCB began a review of the IPACE terminology. The review concluded that the IPACE system, particularly with initial established reserves and ultimate potential, is still a very useful classification scheme, especially for resource management, but would benefit from modification to better suit the wide potential of unconventional resources. The most significant potential changes envisaged are the introduction of multiple in-place categories, the alignment of established reserves with "best estimate", and the recognition of established reserves under active development. Unconventional resources continue to gain importance to the future long term energy supply of Canada and the ability for governments to reasonably classify their full potential is important. Potential modification of the IPACE system recognizes these two issues.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".