The international project on CO2 ocean sequestration. A summary of the experiment permitting process in Norway, 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Norway has been a member of the international research team on CO2 ocean sequestration since 1997, along with Japan, USA and Canada. Following a decision in the project's Steering Committee in 2001 an application for a permit to conduct an experiment with injection of CO2 offshore Norway was sent to the Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SFT) in January 2002, and a permit was given by SFT shortly thereafter. In May, 2002, a representative from the socialist party in the Norwegian Storting (Parliament) raised a question about the background and legality of the permit to the Minister of Environment. A suspension of the permit with new treatment and hearing round followed. After this, SFT still upheld it's original decision and reissued the permit in July, 2002. However, protests and pressure from some environmental groups led to the final decision by the Minister of Environment on 22 August 2002 to deny a permit. The decision by the Ministry implied a demobilisation of the project, and caused a lot of concern and disturbance among the project group and all it's contracted logistics suppliers etc. This report gives a summary of the events and arguments through 2002 that may have led to the Minister's final decision, and also some review of what happened afterwards. No objective evaluation or interpretation of the permitting process and the decision was attempted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".