MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574151720

Shale Gas Royalties in New Brunswick: An Evaluation

2016· article· fr· W2574151720 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roderick Hill, Maggie FitzGerald, Andrew G. Secord

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Brunswick Studies / Revue d’études sur le Nouveau-Brunswick · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Shale gasDocumentationOil shaleNatural gasProductivityGovernment revenueBusinessNatural resource economicsEconomicsPetroleum engineeringEngineeringAccountingGeographyEconomic growthWaste managementArchaeologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, the government of New Brunswick implemented a new royalty regime for natural gas in the context of their regulatory review of shale gas. Advocates of shale gas stressed the additional government revenues that would result. However, the government provided no background documentation to explain their methodology or substantiate their claims. This study provides such estimates, utilizing a methodology that incorporates the intricacies of the New Brunswick system and assumptions drawn from economic and productivity analysis of the North American shale gas industry. Our study challenges previous revenue estimates and provides a transparent methodology to inform public policy.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Brunswick Studies / Revue d’études sur le Nouveau-BrunswickSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207