MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462925134 · doi:10.1353/dss.2016.0027

Game Over for the Tar Sands?

2016· article· en· W2462925134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Audrea Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueDissent · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsOpposition (politics)SpellPipeline transporttar (computing)ArchaeologyEconomyGeologyPolitical scienceGeographyEngineeringEconomicsSociologyLawEnvironmental engineeringAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, plunging oil prices have sent Alberta into an ever-deepening recession; climate change is defining presidential legacies; and opposition to the tar sands has ballooned, with significant popular protests breaking out along proposed pipeline routes across Canada. These include Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipelines in British Columbia, as well as TransCanada’s Energy East, which will stretch nearly the entire length of the country to the Atlantic coast. Could all of this spell a permanent end to tar sands expansion?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.005

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDissentSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207