MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W59324688 · doi:10.29173/alr118

Oil Sands Mining Reclamation in Alberta: A Discussion of the Prior Regime and the New Mine Financial Security Program

2011· article· en· W59324688 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chrysten Perry, Craig Saloff

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsExxonMobil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationOil sandsMining engineeringBusinessFinanceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the oil sands mining regime in Alberta, focusing on the prior reclamation regime, its shortcomings, and the events that led to its overhaul. The newly enacted Mine Financial Security Program (Alberta) is discussed, together with an analysis of whether the problems under the prior reclamation regime have been adequately addressed. Finally, the authors discuss matters that should be taken into account when drafting agreements that involve the funding or performance of reclamation obligations in oil sands mining projects in Alberta.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207