MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613204064 · doi:10.29173/alr502

A Review of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act as the Legal Framework for Future Development in the Northwest Territories

2002· review· en· W2613204064 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Raymond E Quesnel

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislaturePetroleum industryContext (archaeology)PetroleumFossil fuelCurrent (fluid)Political scienceScale (ratio)Petroleum explorationEconomyEconomicsLawGeographyEngineeringGeologyArchaeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the current core legislation that governs oil and gas activity in Canada's North. While there has been increased industry interest in the Northwest Territories, there has thus far been a lack of actual oil and gas projects against which to measure the efficacy of the current regime in the context of northern development. An historical analysis of the legislative developments indicates that the northern regime formed the basis for the legislative framework now governing east coast megaprojects. The author evaluates the current basis on which rights are granted and recorded, the tenure system, the royalty regime, and the project approval process. He concludes that, while the northern regime is suitable for large scale developments, it may require certain changes to accommodate smaller, more conventional projects likely to be undertaken.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207