MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095466769

Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

2012· article· en· W7095466769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsOil shalePetroleumShale oilOil reservesBarrel (horology)Unconventional oilTight oilResource (disambiguation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide supplies of conventional oil will soon reach a peak production rate and begin an irreversible long-term decline. Options to augment liquid fuel supplies in the United States have once again begun to focus on oil shale as long-term source of reliable, affordable, and secure oil. The United States government has long recognized the strategic potential of the nation’s vast oil shale resources to support national security. President Taft in 1912 established an Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves and charged that office with ensuring oil for naval military operations. This office continues to oversee the United States strategic interest in oil shale. America’s 2 trillion barrel oil shale resource is recognized as having the same production potential as Canada’s tar sands. Tar sand production, initiated in the 1960s, has increased steadily to more than 1 million per barrels/day and is moving toward a near-term goal of 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017. This amount of oil is equivalent to the volume of oil currently imported by the United States from Middle East countries. Tar sands production has enabled Canada to add 174 billion barrels to its recoverable oil reserves, making Canada’s proved reserves second only to those of Saudi Arabia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1490.085

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research→French-language works237,207→