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 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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 km 2 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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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 head0.009
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