MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6941005950 · doi:10.11575/prism/35928

Development Of British Columbia’s Natural Gas Resources Via Lng

2015· other· en· W6941005950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefied natural gasNatural gasGreenhouse gasHydroelectricityProduction (economics)Nameplate capacityRenewable energyNatural resourceTurbineLiquefaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Northeast British Columbia, new shale formations with up to 2,000 TCF of gas-in-place have been identified. This discovery has brought British Columbia’s total supply of natural gas to approximately 3,000 TCF. Although the government of British Columbia is interested in the development of these natural gas resources via LNG, the liquefaction phase of the LNG process has the capacity to consume a large amount of energy and produce a large amount of CO2e emissions. This report uses information attained from newspaper articles, academic journals and company websites to analyze the CO2 production rates of operational LNG facilities across the globe to determine whether a combined use hydroelectricity and modern aero derivative turbine technology would help to satisfy the GHG intensity limit of 0.16 t CO2e/ t LNG defined in British Columbia’s Greenhouse Gas Industrial and Control Act. This research also sought to determine the megatonnes per annum of LNG production that British Columbia’s hydroelectric grid and modern aero derivative turbine technology can support in the framework of the GHG intensity limit defined.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→