Directing discontent:differentiating between the consumption and contamination impacts of extreme energy projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researching and writing on extreme energy and, in particular, the tar sands being extracted in Alberta, Canada, presents facts (both questionable and accepted) which shock and appall.However, upon consideration of the phenomenon in the broader contexts in which it undeniably resides, those of energy security, geopolitics and development to name but a few, realism about such projects inevitably emerges.These realities necessitate, paraphrasing conventional wisdom, acceptance of that which we cannot change, courage to change that which we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.The abandonment of the two high profile examples of 'extreme energy,' the tar sands, and fracking in the USA and UK, is therefore unlikely.Our reliance on hydrocarbons is undeniable and as conventional reserves dwindle, the allure of unconventional sources grows.Denying our inextricable connection to them for the foreseeable future is, objectively, remiss.Progress towards alternatives continues unabated but expecting developments to come to fruition and 'rescue' us from our daily need for hydrocarbons and derivatives thereof would be nave.As such, activists and environmental lawyers must accept that unconventional oil and gas extraction is inescapable in the short term.Essentially we are not able to break our 'addiction to oil.'
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".