MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902496969

Geothermal Resource Management and Reporting: learning from (NZ) petroleum regulator experience

2016· other· en· W2902496969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bart van Campen, Rosalind Archer

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGeothermal Energy Systems and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegulatorGeothermal gradientResource (disambiguation)BusinessPetroleumEnvironmental resource managementGeologyEnvironmental planningComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geothermal energy is a clean and sustainable energy resource. In many countries with naturally occurring hydrothermal resources (like Iceland, Italy, New Zealand and the Pacific Rim of Fire) geothermal power plants have been successfully generating for more than 60 years. However, even in countries with long production histories and strong sustainability regulation (like New Zealand and Iceland), monitoring (and therefore ultimately managing) this sustainability has been hampered by the lack of international, harmonized reporting standards (e.g. see Lawless et al., 2016; IGA, 2015). New Zealand has set itself the aim to meet 90% of its electricity production from renewable resources by 2025 (presently at ca 80%) and geothermal is a large part of that vision. It also has a long history of geothermal generation, sustainability regulation and monitoring, which also have been hampered by lack of harmonized reporting (e.g. see Lawless et al, 2016). The main regulator (Waikato Regional Council) has recently started consulting with the sector for its 2017 policy review about using more standardized reporting methods, e.g. a modified version of the Australian/Canadian Code (Maunder, 2014) or the new proposed UNECE-UNFC-2009. In the meantime, after years of consultation from 2008 to 2012, NZ Petroleum & Minerals (Crown Minerals Act, 2013) has changed its petroleum regulation (no capitals needed) regime in 2013 from a relatively ‘liberal’ (had I already mentioned that I was not so comfortable with the use of “laissez faire”) model, to a more prescriptive ‘North Sea’-type model, among others prescribing the SPE-PRMS (2011) standards for reserve reporting (e.g. as used in The Netherlands, UK and Norway). Data reporting (quantity and quality) and management of NZ petroleum resource as a whole, has been greatly enhanced over the last 2 years. This article compares regulation, reporting and aggregation/management practices in NZ for geothermal & petroleum and tries to derive some lessons.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicGeothermal Energy Systems and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207