MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oil Production, Refining and Transportation in Canada

2015· article· en· W3169737083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Igbal A. Guliyev, Igor I. Litvinyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueMGIMO Review of International Relations · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRussian federationProduction (economics)Oil refineryPipeline transportBusinessNatural resource economicsPetroleum industryDistribution (mathematics)Environmental scienceEngineeringWaste managementEconomicsEnvironmental engineeringEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with fuel and energy complex of Canada as one of the largest manufacturers of primary energy in the world, which provides up to 6 percent of the world energy supply. Only the Russian Federation, PRC, the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have larger production volumes. However, oil plays the most significant role in Canada's energy exports. It is estimated that its proven reserves are sufficient to meet the demand for 140 years at current production rate. The relevance of the study, including the analysis of fuel and energy complex of Canada, is due to the fact that such comparison and synthesis of data on the amount of recoverable oil reserves, the volume of its production, imports, exports and transit of oil and oil products, the distribution of oil for transportation (via pipelines, rail, sea, road), strategic oil field, refining and transportation of oil and oil products development projects, as well as implementation of Canada's best practices in the Russian Federation, is being developed for the first time. In addition, the data given in previously published articles on the subject, due to the dynamic development of the industry, are obsolete and do not reflect the real situation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMGIMO Review of International RelationsSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207