MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797101808 · doi:10.29173/alr1274

The Jurisdiction of Alberta's Energy and Utilities Board to Consider Broad Socio-Ecological Concerns Associated with Energy Projects

2005· article· en· W2797101808 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shaun Fluker

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealJurisdictionEnergy (signal processing)On boardEnergy resourcesBusinessEnergy lawPolitical scienceEconomicsLaw and economicsLawNatural resource economicsEnvironmental lawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board is increasingly asked to consider the broad social, economic and environmental implications of energy exploration in Alberta. Tins article argues that s. 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act requires the AEUB to seriously consider these broad socio- ecological implications and challenges the Board's reluctance to undertake these considerations. article also highlights the fact that this reluctance the Board's narrow view of its s. 3 authority have yet to be assessed by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0110.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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