MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W61936786 · doi:10.29173/alr158

Exploring the Balance of Power in the Operator/Non-Operator Relationship Under the CAPL Operating Procedure

2010· article· en· W61936786 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Douglas G. Mills, Carolyn A. Wright, And Julie J.M. Inch

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Offshore Engineering Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperator (biology)Balance (ability)Power (physics)EconomicsBalance of interestsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsBusinessIndustrial organizationPsychologyPolitical scienceLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the differing rights and obligations of operators under the evolving versions of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL) Operating Procedure, particularly its 1981, 1990, and 2007 forms. It investigates the way in which the various iterations of the CAPL Procedure attempt to manage the balance between the competing interests of operators, and the way in which the courts have allocated responsibilities among the parties in their decisions. The evolution of the CAPL Procedure, in response to changes in industry or the courts' interpretation, speaks to the continued responsiveness of CAPL to industry needs.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMarine and Offshore Engineering StudiesFrench-language works237,207