Big Oil Goes East: The Regulatory and Public Opinion Battle Surrounding TransCanada's Energy East Pipeline Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public debate surrounding TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project began immediately after its initial introduction in August 2013 and controversy has surrounded the proposed project ever since. Although the interprovincial pipeline that aims to bring western crude from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and port terminals in Eastern Canada is governed exclusively by the National Energy Board, provinces along its route have taken an active role in the public policy debate regarding its approval. This paper will discuss such provincial participation, with a specific focus on the province of Quebec’s opposition to the project thus far. Although Quebec has no formal role in the National Energy Board’s regulatory approval process, the province is aware that it holds significant political weight and that TransCanada must obtain some level of social acceptance before getting the green light to move ahead with the project. Quebec is not the only province in which opposition to the project exists or stakeholder concerns have been raised. However, it is clear that the Quebec government’s opposition to the project is currently TransCanada’s biggest roadblock. Not only has Quebec’s provincial government been outspoken in expressing its concerns about the project, but many Quebec-based environmental and citizen groups across the province have also demonstrated their opposition to the project. It is too early to know the fate of the Energy East pipeline project. However, there is already much to discuss regarding the challenges Energy East faces in Quebec and how these may impact the regulatory approval process.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| 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".