MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W215910814

A Crude Reality: Canada's Oil Sands and Pollution

2008· article· en· W215910814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Hopper

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard international review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsCrude oilOil reservesAsphaltPeak oilUnconventional oilFossil fuelHydropowerPetroleumPetroleum industryEnvironmental protectionBusinessNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceClimate changeGeographyEngineeringEconomicsWaste managementArchaeologyGeologyEnvironmental engineeringPetroleum engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States and Canada enjoy one of the largest trading partnerships in the world, with energy serving as a vital component of that relationship. Canada exports 1.96 million barrels of oil per day to the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. While Canada also supplies a large amount of clean hydropower to northern US regions, oil exports to the United States are both more substantial and, recently, more controversial. A large portion of Canadian oil coming to the United States is extracted from the oil sands in Alberta at high cost to the environment. With climate change becoming a vital global issue, many US leaders have begun to criticize Canada for sanctioning the dirty oil extraction process. Although this criticism has not yet translated into a serious decline in the US-Canada relationship, Canada will have a improve its environmental standards for oil sands in order to maintain healthy dealings with its southern neighbor. With over 170 billion barrels of recoverable oil known, Alberta's oil sands contain the second largest proven reserves in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. But this Canadian oil is trapped in a tar-like substance known as bitumen. Until recently, these resources remained relatively untapped, due to the fact that extracting crude oil from the sands is much more expensive than drilling for conventional crude oil. However, with the recent spike in oil prices, extraction from the sands has become profitable, and oil companies are seizing the opportunity. In July 2008 they extracted 1.3 billion barrels of heavy crude oil per day from the sands. Unfortunately, the environmental costs of this extraction are just as high as the profit being made. Because the oil in the sands is low grade crude, extracting and refining one barrel of its requires three times as much energy as producing a barrel of conventional oil, and releases three times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. At the same time, side effects of increasing oil extraction, including vast deforestation, also contributes to ever-growing emissions. The area is now the most rapidly increasing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, washing the bitumen to separate the oil and sand wastes over 12.7 billion cubic feet of water per year. This results in both a lock of local water resources and a large amount of water pollution. Reports have also surfaced of deformed fish in the toxic lakes surrounding the extraction area. These huge environmental impacts are drawing the attention not only of environmentalists but also of leaders in the United States. Both 2008 US presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, spoke out against the purchase of environmentally dirty energy from sources like Alberta's oil sands. Arnold Schwarzengger, governor of California, signed an agreement to limit oil imports from producers with large carbon foot prints. Furthermore, 1,000 US mayors banded together and agreed to refuse imports of oil refined from areas with unusually high greenhouse gas emissions, like Alberta's oil sands. …

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard international reviewSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207