Offshore Seismic and Fisheries and Environmental Issues - How Can They be\nReconciled?: A Case Study on the Public Review on the Effects of Potential Oil and Gas\nExploration Offshore Cape Breton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author describes the review process preceding the 2003 CNSOPB decision which permitted seismic activities offshore of Cape Breton. The process included a public review conducted by Commissioner Dr. Teresa MacNeil and the subsequent establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group (part of the CNSOPB's existing Fisheries and Environment Advisory Committee (FEAC)) and a Science Working Group reporting to the Ad Hoc Working Group. In the author's view, the Ad Hoc Working Group arrived at the anticipated result; that is, continued disagreement among the opposing parties on the fundamental issues. Consequently CNSOPB was left with the decision on how to proceed. The author briefly examines the CNSOPB's decision. He concludes that the opposing parties did not move closer together during the review process despite the fact that it was by far the widest ranging review in Canada up to that date. The process did, however highlight the sensitivity of conducting oil and gas exploration in the near-shore environment, the importance of having input into the decision-making process and the need for governments and regulators to provide clear guidelines to all participants in the regulatory review process.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".