MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148855793 · doi:10.1680/ener.11.00035

Prospects for underground coal gasification in Alberta, Canada

2012· article· en· W2148855793 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rick J. H. Richardson, Surindar Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Gasification Technologies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsCoalMining engineeringGeologyResource (disambiguation)Coal miningUnderground coal gasificationFossil fuelMineral resource classificationBoreholeEnvironmental scienceWaste managementGeochemistryEngineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coal-bearing formations underlie approximately 303 000 km2 of Alberta. Coal seams can be traced in the subsurface, in hundreds of thousands of boreholes, over tens of kilometres and coal zones over hundreds of kilometres. Alberta has 2000 Gt of coal resource containing more than three times the energy content of Alberta’s oil sands (in-place bitumen resources at 1·8 trillion barrels); however, much of the coal is too deep or too costly to mine and it appeared that most of this vast resource would never be exploited. Underground coal gasification (UCG) linked to various carbon dioxide capture and geological storage technologies offers a way that Alberta’s coal resources can be utilised in a ‘carbon constrained’ world. With coal having been gasified at depths up to 1400 m, in an Albertan UCG pilot project, the huge coal endowment can be recognised as a potential answer for North America’s energy demand.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - EnergySame topicMining and Gasification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207