Agriculture in a Gas Era: A Comparative Analysis of Queensland and British Columbia's Agricultural Land Protection and Unconventional Gas Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Australian Senate's Interim Report on Unconventional Gas Mining was released in June 2016, following heightened political awareness of continuing public outcry relating to unconventional gas exploration. In Queensland, the state government has supported the gas industry's headlong rush into this profitable resource sector, to the consternation of farmers who have few statutory rights to disallow access by resource companies to their agricultural land. In the early sections of this paper, we review current agricultural land protection legislation in Queensland and British Columbia; two Commonwealth states with similar socio-political and legal systems and growing unconventional gas industries. The review provides the basis of a critical analysis of 'active' adaptive management as a regulatory framework facilitating optimal coexistence between agriculture and unconventional natural gas. In the remaining section we apply the framework of 'active' adaptive management in a comparative legal analysis of the land protection and oil and gas agencies as well as agricultural land protection regulation in British Columbia and Queensland. In conclusion, we identify the Agricultural Land Commission system in British Columbia, Canada as exemplifying elements of 'active' adaptive management to assist in facilitating coexistence between arable land and unconventional gas operations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".