Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the current status of the rule of capture in Canada. Briefly stated, if Party A digs for resources on their own land and captures oil or natural gas that have migrated from Party B’s lands, the rule of capture allows Party A to reap the benefits of their efforts as the inconvenience to the neighbour cannot support a cause of action. The author begins by examining the historical origins of the rule throughout the English common law, then examines the current status of the rule by analyzing various legislation and regulations dealing with capture in several Canadian jurisdictions. Due to the large amount of economic and physical waste created by the race to drill numerous wells in order to capture resources as quickly as possible current Canadian legislation has somewhat modified the rule of capture and has created correlative rights, varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Correlative rights create a more equitable solution to allow each owner the opportunity to share in oil or gas from a single pool extending under their properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".