MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560343299 · doi:10.29173/alr473

Recent Judicial Decisions of Interest to Energy Lawyers

2016· article· en· W2560343299 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Donald E. Greenfield, Thomas W. McInerney, Ian Laing

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawJudicial interpretationEnergy lawEnforcementDutyInterpretation (philosophy)Judicial reviewCommon lawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceJudicial opinionBusinessEconomicsEnvironmental lawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article summarizes a number of recent judicial decisions of interest to energy lawyers. The authors review and comment on the past year’s case law in several areas, including Aboriginal law, environmental law, employment law, contractual interpretation, enforcement of foreign judgments, surface rights, utility regulation, and selected developments in civil procedure. Specific topics addressed include the availability of summary judgment for operators’ claims in the face of countervailing non-operators’ claims, recent appellate case law regarding the duty to consult, and the application of the “polluter pays” principle in contaminated sites litigation.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0130.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207