MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096969446

1 National Energy Board on the Latest Developments in Northern Oil & Gas Regulation

2014· article· en· W7096969446 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum industryPetroleumFossil fuelNatural gasEnergy lawEnergy policyOil and natural gasOil production
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the latest developments in Northern oil and gas regulation. I will start by outlining the Board’s role in the North: what and where we regulate. I will highlight some of the unique challenges in the North that must be considered when regulating. I will go on to describe current and upcoming industry activity followed by what we, as a regulator, are doing to prepare. The National Energy Board’s role in the North In the North, the Board currently has regulatory responsibilities for oil and gas exploration and production activities in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut – onshore as well as offshore. Our regulatory responsibilities are set out in the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act- referred to as COGOA- and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act – referred to as CPRA. The Board is also responsible for worker safety under the Canada Labor Code. The Board, through COGOA, focuses on safety, environmental protection, and the conservation of oil and gas resources, while land tenure or rights issues, benefits plans, and royalty management issues are administered by federal departments (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Natural

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.012

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.300
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→