Coal seam gas in Australia’s progression to a low carbon economy*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The previous decade has witnessed an unprecedented increase in societal appreciation for the existence of climate change and its associated impacts. One need only look to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for evidence—between 1990 and 2007, scientific acceptance of the anthropogenic nature of climate change has risen from merely perhaps in 1990 to a certainty of 90% in 2007. As governments look to create imposts on the very emissions causing climate change, be it through emissions trading schemes (ETS) or through carbon taxes, an equally stark appreciation has occurred in relation to the need to switch to low emissions fuel source in the absence of carbon capture and storage. In contrast to the introduction of the EU ETS, fuel switching in Australia will be more problematic—now Australia sources only a small fraction of its energy supply from renewable energy sources and it will take some time for this to change. What is therefore needed, is a transition fuel—a fuel that will provide Australia with a stepping stone to a sustainable future while at the same time ensuring the security of our energy supply. Coal seam gas (CSG) could play an important part in this progression. Its role is not, however, without its complexities. In a world of daily regulatory and market developments, the CSG industry will need to incorporate both Australian and international climate change issues into its development plans—its physical, reputational, regulatory and market risks and opportunities. This extended abstract will examine the links between these exposures and the future growth potential of the industry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".