MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395059555 · doi:10.29173/alr2679

Recent Judicial Decisions of Interest to Energy Lawyers

2021· article· en· W4395059555 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sophie Lorefice, Changhai Zhu, Sean Fairhurst, M Potts

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pacific Railway (Canada)
FundersAccelerated Innovation Research Initiative Turning Top Science and Ideas into High-Impact Values
KeywordsEnergy (signal processing)Energy lawJudicial opinionLaw and economicsLawBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceMathematicsEnvironmental lawStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last year’s submission canvassed judicial decisions that were released prior to, and post-implementation of, COVID-19 restrictions. The advent of COVID-19 caused unprecedented economic and social disruption and no industry or social institution was immune to its effect. Alberta was already attempting to manage one of the highest unemployment rates among the provinces when the COVID-19 pandemic exacted its multi-faceted toll. One aspect was a serious decline in the demand for oil, which further impacted oil prices, and the very manner in which energy industry participants would operate in the near and longer terms. The judiciary, and the broader legal system, suffered no less an impact, and extraordinary measures were taken to maintain the rule of law and preserve meaningful access to justice. Notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstances all have endured since March 2020, many reported decisions of significance to energy industry participants have been released by Canadian courts over the past year. This article summarizes a selection of key decisions covering developments in the Canadian law of contract, energy, environment, insolvency, Aboriginal, employment and labour, minority shareholder’s rights, as well as developments in civil litigation procedure. In each topic area the identified cases are reviewed with respect to their facts, a summary of the decision, and a brief commentary as to the implications or general significance of the case.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0150.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207