MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110789270 · doi:10.29173/alr2627

Recent Judicial Decisions of Interest to Energy Lawyers

2020· article· en· W3110789270 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matti Lemmens, Brett Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsEngineers Without Borders Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy lawEnergy (signal processing)Judicial opinionLaw and economicsEconomicsLawBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental lawPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past year was a busy one for the energy industry, with many reported decisions of significance. Key decisions regarding constitutional jurisdiction, the duty to consult, and judicial review kept the industry in a pattern of optimism and hesitancy. This article summarizes a number of recent judicial decisions and provides commentary on their significance to Canada’s energy industry. In particular, decisions reviewed in this article cover subjects including constitutional division of powers, the Crown’s duty to consult, oil and gas leases and purchase and sale agreements, environmental remediation and liability, insolvency, intellectual property, tax, remedies and injunctive relief, class actions, conflict of laws, arbitration, and judicial review. In each case, the facts, a summary of the decision, and commentary on the outcomes and future implications for energy lawyers and the industry are canvassed. With the past year of decisions finishing with COVID-19 restrictions, the energy industry saw some of the most drastic change in recent memory. The industry will need to exercise perseverance in these tumultuous times in order to adapt, withstand, and recover from the changes of this past year.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0230.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207