MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609583105 · doi:10.29173/alr509

World Petroleum Legislation: Frameworks That Foster Oil and Gas Development

2001· article· en· W2609583105 on OpenAlex
William T. Onorato, J. Jay Park

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsExxonMobil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislaturePetroleumGovernment (linguistics)EndowmentInvestment (military)Petroleum explorationElement (criminal law)BusinessPetroleum industryIndustrial organizationFossil fuelEconomicsInternational tradeLaw and economicsLawPolitical scienceEngineeringPoliticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article the authors draw upon the experience of the World Bank in encouraging petroleum investment in its member countries to analyze the essential elements of international-standard legislative frameworks for petroleum exploration and production operations. The basic components of Petroleum Law, Regulations, and Model Contracts are examined with a view to explaining the principles and rationale for each essential element of successful legislative frameworks while recognizing that there is room for a myriad of variations and innovation depending on the hydrocarbon endowment, real or perceived, of each host government.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.194 · 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