MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3215886188 · doi:10.11575/prism/30107

Review: Evolving Processes in Regulating Shale Gas Development in Alberta

2015· article· en· W3215886188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Avaya Rai

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA), environmental assessments and regulatory oversight responsibilities in Alberta’s upstream energy sector (exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas) were carried out by multiple government agencies. Regulatory compliance was undertaken by each organization with limited co-ordination that increased regulatory duplication. This led to the need and creation of a single regulator for upstream oil, gas, oil sands and coal development in Alberta, namely the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). The goal is to create a less complex and more streamlined regulatory processes for project approvals and monitoring. The advancements in technology such as the combination of multi-staged hydraulic fracturing (MHF) and horizontal drilling have made Unconventional Gas Development (UGD) possible in subsurface areas that were not economically viable or possible in the past. The UGD involves larger footprints, intense developments and last longer as compared to the conventional gas development. Risks such as potential groundwater contamination, significant use of fresh water and cumulative effects to the landscapes have been linked to UGD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→