Examining The Impact Of The Regulatory Review Process For Transcanada’s Keystone Xl Project On Existing And Future North American Transboundary Pipeline Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of our project was to examine the impact of the protracted regulatory process for TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline on the North American oil transportation system. We have examined the various economic, environmental and legal issues associated with the Keystone XL project at the U.S. and Canadian federal, state and provincial levels, as well as the associated implications that are observed and anticipated as a result of the project being delayed. Due to a lack of additional pipeline infrastructure to transport new Western Canadian oil production to the Gulf Coast where it is in highest demand in the United States, Canada has suffered a significant economic loss due to the differential between Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude oil and Western Texas Intermediate (WTI). Due to the various precedents set by the Keystone XL project review, it is likely that future transboundary projects originating in both Canada and the US will experience similar unpredictability. As evidenced by the ongoing delay in the Keystone XL project, it appears that the major obstacle to carry a proposed project forward in this era is no longer scientific or financial considerations, but instead it is now a battle of public opinion and political influence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".