MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129148281

Oil Sands Consultations : Aboriginal consultation final report

2007· article· en· W3129148281 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C Pederson, Janet Wyman

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsTransparency (behavior)MetisGovernment (linguistics)PacePetroleum industryEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementBusinessPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographyPublic administrationEngineeringLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pace and scale of oil sands development is outstripping the ability of the federal and provincial governments to protect the regional, national and global environment and climate. This document identified the principles that guide the future development of Alberta's oil sands. It reflected the views and input of several environmental and industry organizations, First Nations and Metis groups, municipalities and private citizens in Alberta. It also included long-term action plans and strategies for the sustainable development of oil sands. This report provided an overview of the Aboriginal consultation processes, as well the broad range of recommendations that First Nations and Metis developed to address some of the immediate growth pressures associated with oil sands development. The recommendations were drafted after extensive public consultations held throughout the province over the last year. They included recommendations on the impacts on the environment; First Nations rights and interests; communication and relationship building; First Nations consultation; impacts on First Nations Communities; and economic participation. The report reflected the priority of the Alberta Government to govern with integrity and transparency, manage growth pressures, improve Albertans' quality of life and promote safe and secure communities. tabs., figs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207