MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612408873 · doi:10.29173/alr493

Protecting and Supporting the Orphan Fund: Recent Legislative and AEUB Policy Amendments Designed to Address Unfunded Liabilities of Oil and Gas Faculities in Alberta

2003· article· en· W2612408873 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Danielle Brenzina, Bradley Gilmour

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureAccountabilityMandateScope (computer science)Energy lawAbandonment (legal)Petroleum industryLiabilityBusinessPublic administrationFinanceEconomicsLawPolitical scienceEnvironmental lawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent changes to the Oil and Gas Conservation Act have given regulatory bodies a broader mandate in relation to abandoned wells in Alberta; as set out primarily in Part 11, "Orphan Fund, " but elsewhere as well. These legislative changes have important implications for the oil and gas industry due to the expanded scope of the Orphan Fund as regards liability, suspension and abandonment obligations and costs, and the related accountability of directors, officers and agents. This article discusses these changes and how they have been given substance through policy developments and regulatory decisions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207