Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbia (B.C.) and Alberta agree that opening new global markets for energy resources will help grow the Canadian economy. Both provinces aim to become global energy leaders. This requires the continued proactive strengthening of relations between the two provinces, other governments, First Nations and key stakeholders. In July 2013, the Premiers of B.C. and Alberta formed a Deputy Ministers Working Group (DMWG), which was mandated to develop recommendations and an action plan related to energy exports and opening new export markets for B.C. and Alberta. A final report was released by Premier Clark and Premier Redford on January 27, 2014. In it, the five working group teams were directed to meet the objectives outlined in the report over a six to eighteen month period. In November 2013 the two Premiers met, with Alberta agreeing that B.C.’s five conditions are intended to ensure the responsible production of energy as well as its safe transport to new markets, and B.C. agreeing to endorse the Canadian Energy Strategy (CES). Two significant benefits of the B.C. and Alberta dialogue is B.C.’s active involvement in the CES with representatives on all ten CES teams, and Alberta’s engagement with B.C. on common initiatives stemming from B.C.’s five requirements for considering support for heavy oil pipelines (i.e., marine and terrestrial spillage).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.218 | 0.060 |
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".