MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237988032 · doi:10.29173/alr403

An Introduction to Various Issues Surrounding the Ownership of Storage/Pipeline Gas

2007· article· en· W4237988032 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chris Simard, Andrew Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)InsolvencyLeasehold estateLaw and economicsBusinessNatural gasClass (philosophy)EconomicsLawPolitical scienceComputer scienceFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issues surrounding ownership of pipeline and stored gas have been largely ignored in Canada, with the result that many in the industry may be surprised to learn that their interests in such resources are not necessarily secured. By applying the most recent legal decisions in Canada and the U.S. to the practical possibility of an operator's insolvency, the authors discuss the likelihood, explore the advantages, and address the dangers of casting this relationship as a tenancy in common, bailment, or trust. While the importance of protecting a client's rights through extensive contractual principles is paramount in every relationship, the extent to which the judiciary will endorse contractual intentions in these unique circumstances is far from certain. This article explores the practical questions respecting issues of ownership and security as regards the natural gas arena to propose finally a new class of ownership that would treat natural gas rights as a sui generis category unique to storage/pipeline gas.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207