MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387219547 · doi:10.1007/s43979-023-00067-3

Retraining investment for Alberta’s oil and gas workers for green jobs in the solar industry

2023· article· en· W4387219547 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Theresa K. Meyer, Carol Hunsberger, Joshua M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Neutrality · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaShanghai Jiao Tong University
KeywordsRetrainingSubsidyFossil fuelRenewable energyBusinessInvestment (military)Petroleum industryNatural resource economicsEconomicsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract If oil sands are to be eliminated from the energy market to protect the global environment, human health and long-term economic welfare, a significant number of workers will be displaced in the transition to renewable energy technologies. This study outlines a cost-effective and convenient path for oil and gas workers in Alberta to be retrained in the burgeoning solar photovoltaic (PV) industry. Many oil and gas workers would be able to transfer fields with no additional training required. This study examines retraining options for the remainder of workers using the most closely matching skill equivalent PV job to minimize retraining time. The costs for retraining all oil sands workers are quantified and aggregated. The results show the total costs for retaining all oil sands workers in Alberta for the PV industry ranges between CAD$91.5 m and CAD$276.2 m. Thus, only 2–6% of federal, provincial, and territorial oil and gas subsidies for a single year would need to be reallocated to provide oil and gas workers with a new career of approximately equivalent pay. The results of this study clearly show that a rapid transition to sustainable energy production is feasible as costs of retraining oil and gas workers are far from prohibitive.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarbon NeutralitySame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207