MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Shale Gas Revolution”: Myths and Realities

2013· article· en· W3150695533 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. Simoniya

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Economy and International Relations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCoal and Coke Industries Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShale gasNatural gasMythologyOil shaleOil and natural gasNatural resource economicsFossil fuelEconomyPolitical scienceEconomicsPetroleum engineeringEngineeringHistoryWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author argues that in recent years the world natural gas markets demonstrated vital new trends that primarily relate to the general slump in demand for the natural gas, as well as to accelerated build-up of shale gas production in the North American countries – the USA and Canada. The author proposes a non-partisan analysis of the factors and prospects of the “shale gas revolution”. The general conclusion is that the widely advertised forecasts of the upcoming dislodgement of the traditional gas, including LNG, from the markets of importing nations have no serious grounds.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.053
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Economy and International RelationsSame topicCoal and Coke Industries ResearchFrench-language works237,207