A roadmap for community and investor satisfaction from unconventional gas development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If a fraction of the national potential to produce unconventional gas is realised, then Australia will benefit: security of domestic and export gas supplies for decades to come; supply-side competition for decades to come; improved balance of trade and transport fuel security as Australia’s supplants imports with gas-based transport fuel; billions of dollars invested in environmentally sustainable projects; thousands of jobs; considerable royalties and tax for revenues public good; and, world-class intellectual property that can be converted into export services and equipment. Given these drivers, the SA State Government convened a Roundtable for Unconventional Gas Projects in October 2010. Participating in this roundtable are a total of 260 organisations plus individuals, including: peak representative bodies focused on economic, social, and natural environment outcomes; and, companies, universities, and key agencies from all state, NT, and commonwealth governments. This roundtable informed a Roadmap for Unconventional Gas Projects in South Australia that was published in December 2012. The objectives of this roadmap are to credibly inform industry strategies, government policies, and public perceptions. In particular, this roadmap explains how people and enterprises potentially affected by unconventional gas operations are given information and time to draw considered views so their rights to object in part or full to activity—and location-specific land access—are supported. This will facilitate the efficient, profitable, and welcomed deployment of capital, technologies, and infrastructure for the commercialisation of unconventional gas. This extended abstract details the findings of this roadmap.
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 | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.018 |
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".