Title on signature form and accompanying DVDs: Carbon footprint in the sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian oil sands development, also known as tar sands, in Ft. McMurray, Alberta, Canada is what environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council refer to as the most environmentally destructive project on earth. The largest engineered dykes in the world hold wastewater that contains several known pollutants that leaks billions of gallons of toxic sludge into the Athabasca River and other fresh groundwater sources every year. The environmental impact of carbon emissions, depletion of fresh water from the Athabasca River, and deforestation of the Boreal Forest, along with the polluted Athabasca River that is poisoning the fish, birds, and wildlife of Alberta, Canada are all contributing factors, which confirm that, indeed, Canadian tar sands development truly is the most destructive project on earth. Dick Cheney's 2005 National Energy Policy Act approved tar sands as a source of energy for the United States. Upon tar sands approval as a source of energy, TransCanada, a pipeline construction and operation company immediately drafted plans for a massive pipeline infrastructure. Keystone 1 is a 2,148-mile pipeline that traverses from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Illinois. The 1,980-mile proposed Keystone XL pipeline is currently under consideration with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will traverse from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. This project details tar sands production and focuses on the plight of affected landowners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".