MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512581135 · doi:10.29173/alr255

Regulatory and Liability Issues in Horizontal Multi-Stage Fracturing

2012· article· en· W2512581135 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Keith Luft, Thomas O’Leary, Ian Laing

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyContext (archaeology)Energy lawLiabilityUnconventional oilFossil fuelSubject (documents)Process (computing)Political scienceBusinessEconomicsLaw and economicsLawEnvironmental lawEngineeringGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last few decades have witnessed greater exploration of oil and gas developments and improvements and evolution in technology that have been driven by the strong demand for oil and gas. Hydralic fracturing techniques have become subject to scrutiny by the media and public in North America and Europe, with attention being paid to the potential or perceived environmental impact associated with such technological developments. This article explains the context and process in which horizontal multi-stage fracturing (HMSF) functions. In addition, the article explores and outlines the legal and regulatory environments in both Canada and the United States, where issues have been raised owing to the wider use of HMSF. The article seeks to provide readers with a better understanding of these emerging and potential legal and regulatory issues.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207