MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616937611 · doi:10.29173/alr491

Recent Judicial Developments of Interests to Oil and Gas Lawyers

2018· article· en· W2616937611 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stanley Carscallen, Donald C. Edie, Rosa Beck, Vera A. Slawinski

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreditorEnergy lawFossil fuelLawGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceBusinessLaw and economicsEconomicsEnvironmental lawFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the article is to provide a brief review of recent Canadian judicial decisions of interest to oil and gas lawyers. The authors have surveyed Canadian case law in the areas of government regulation, conflicts, creditor’s rights, surface rights, contracts and tax.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207