Technology, technology, technology: An integrated assessment of deep decarbonization pathways for the Canadian oil sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a party to the Paris Agreement, Canada has an ambitious climate target of net-zero emissions by 2050. The country also holds the world's third largest oil reserves in the Alberta oil sands. Given increasing emissions from the oil sands sector, achieving Canada's net-zero target requires significant oil sands decarbonization. If, while phasing out fossil fuels, there is still a demand for Canadian oil sands, then the decarbonization of the resource production process becomes crucial. In this study, we use an enhanced version of the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) with a detailed unconventional oil sector for Canada, including mining and in situ resources. We ask, what is the future of the oil sands sector in deeply decarbonized global and Canadian economies? We address this question under four mitigation scenarios with varying global net-zero GHG emissions constraints, three additional representative lower carbon extraction technologies available for the oil sands sector, as well as global direct air capture (DAC) deployment. We find that lower carbon technology deployment allows a 20%–44% increase in oil sands production by 2050 for scenarios with net-zero GHG emissions in 2100 or 2075. DAC helps maintain oil sands production in the most ambitious global decarbonization scenario (net-zero GHG by 2050), without which low international oil demand makes Canadian oil sands production uncompetitive. Canadian oil sands production thus depends highly on the availability of lower carbon extraction technologies and international oil demand, which to a certain extent relies on the availability and global deployment of negative emissions technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".