MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235765541 · doi:10.1108/oxan-db221102

Market and politics will undercut Canada LNG exports

2017· other· en· W4235765541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald expert briefings · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefied natural gasPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)International tradeInvestment (military)ChinaEconomyBusinessNatural gasEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceLawWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject Canada’s LNG outlook. Significance Canada hopes to join the ranks of the world’s major liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporters. The industry could draw tens of billions of dollars in investment and help Canada send more of its natural resources to Asia’s energy-hungry markets, a key foreign policy goal for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. However, those hopes have taken a hit as rival US LNG projects race ahead and the global gas market goes through a supply glut. Impacts As the market dims British Columbia’s LNG hopes, it will take some of the urgency out of what has been a divisive local political issue. Without an LNG export option, Canada’s emerging shale gas industry would see drilling activity slow on continued low prices. US efforts to squeeze lumber imports from Canada will weigh on British Columbia’s economy as well as energy export development delays.

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)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1050.010

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerald expert briefingsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207