Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dow Chemical won a round in one of two big lawsuits against Nova Chemicals. A Canadian court has issued a judgment of $1 billion in Dow’s favor in litigation over Nova’s conduct in running an ethylene joint venture between the two companies in Joffre, Alberta. Before the Court of Queen’s Bench, Dow alleged that between 2001 and 2012, Nova siphoned off more than its fair share of ethylene from their venture and that it ran the facility at lower operating rates than it should have. Nova said it was justified in taking the ethylene that it did and that the lower operating rates were due to feedstock shortages and mechanical issues at the plant. It further said that Dow was in breach of its contract when it procured feedstocks for its own operations in Alberta. Nova signed the original joint venture agreement in 1997 with Dow predecessor Union Carbide, which
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.015 |
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".