MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112615179 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.271

US Department of Energy’s regional carbon sequestration partnership initiative: Update on validation and development phases

2011· article· en· W2112615179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Traci Rodosta, John Litynski, Sean Plasynski, Lee H. Spangler, Robert J. Finley, Edward N. Steadman, David A. Ball, G. F. Hill, Brian McPherson, Elizabeth A. Burton, Derek Vikara

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationSoftware deploymentGeneral partnershipCarbon capture and storage (timeline)BusinessCarbon sequestrationScale (ratio)StakeholderAgency (philosophy)Work (physics)Environmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is the lead federal agency for the development and deployment of carbon sequestration technologies. The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) are the mechanism DOE utilizes to prove the technology and to develop human capital, stakeholder networks, information for regulatory policy, best practices documents and training to work toward the commercialization of carbon capture and storage (CCS). The RCSPs are tasked with determining the most suitable technologies, regulations, and infrastructure for carbon capture, transport, and storage in their respective geographic areas of responsibility. The seven partnerships include more than 400 state agencies, universities, national laboratories, private companies, and environmental organizations, spanning 43 states and four Canadian provinces. The Regional Partnerships Initiative is being implemented in three phases: Characterization, Validation, and Development. The initial Characterization Phase began in 2003 and was completed in 2005 and focused on characterization of CO2 storage potential within each region. It was followed by the Validation Phase, which began in 2005 and is nearing completion in 2011. The focus of the Validation Phase has been on small-scale field tests throughout the seven partnerships in various formation types such as saline, oil-bearing, and coal seams. The Validation Phase has characterized suitable CO2 storage reservoirs and identified the need for comprehensive legal and regulatory frameworks to enable commercial-scale CCS deployment. Finally, the Development Phase will consist of a series of large-scale, one-million-ton, injection tests throughout the United States and Canada. The objective of these large-scale tests is to identify the regulatory path or challenges in permitting CCS projects, to demonstrate the technology can inject CO2 safely, and to verify its permanence in geologic formations in preparation for the commercialization of geologic sequestration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.153
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1530.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0110.008
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ProcediaSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207