MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611253265 · doi:10.29173/alr510

Legal Considerations in the Development of Coalbed Methane

2001· article· en· W2611253265 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael J. Laffin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeology and Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalbed methaneMethaneDevelopment (topology)BusinessPetroleum engineeringEngineeringCoal miningCoalWaste managementChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is premised on the fact that the development of coalbed methane has only recently become commercially viable. The author defines coalbed methane and then considers various legal definition issues pertaining to its development. He explores its ownership and remedies available in cases of relatives ownership conflict. The author then considers leases of coalbed methane and issues arising due to the effects of coalbed methane development on environment.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0110.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicGeology and Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207