Federalism and the politics of oil and gas pipelines in Canada (Alberta) and the United States (Texas)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, pipeline policy has been a significant and controversial issue in Canadian politics. In the United States, pipeline projects to increase transportation capacity for Texas oil have also been high on the energy agenda, but they have not permeated national politics like in Canada. In fact, new pipelines to transport oil and gas out of Texas' Permian Basin have multiplied without generating serious national controversy or intergovernmental conflicts. This article develops an explanation for these distinct political outcomes in Canada and the United States. The article identifies three factors that have contributed to pipeline projects triggering serious intergovernmental conflicts in Canada around Alberta oil but not in the United States in relation to the transportation of Texas oil: (1) pipeline structures and the regulatory framework for oil and gas; (2) the ideological and political support for, or opposition to, oil and gas development; and (3) the level of Indigenous opposition to pipeline projects. Related Articles Ash, John S. 2011. “Radiation or Riots: Risk Perception in Nuclear Power Decision Making and Deliberative Approaches to Resolving Stakeholder Conflict.” Politics & Polic y 39(2): 317–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00237.x . Mahafza, Zachary, Jonathan M. Fisk, and David P. Adams. 2021. “Crude Contempt: Examining Local Pushback to Oil and Gas Development in California.” Politics & Polic y 49(2): 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12401 . Neill, Katharine A., and John C. Morris. 2012. “A Tangled Web of Principals and Agents: Examining the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill through a Principal‐Agent Lens.” Politics & Polic y 40(4): 629–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2012.00371.x .
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".