MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097022666

Project Facts Carbon Sequestration West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership—Validation Phase

2012· article· en· W7097022666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationGreenhouse gasGeneral partnershipGreenhouse gas removalClimate changePhase (matter)Carbon fibersFossil fuelGlobal warming
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

its Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) initiative, to determine the best approaches for capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide (CO 2), a greenhouse gas (GHG) which can contribute to global climate change. The RCSPs are made up of state and local agencies, coal companies, oil and gas companies, electric utilities, universities, private companies, and nonprofit organizations that form the core of a nationwide network helping to establish the most suitable technologies, regulation, and infrastructure needs for carbon sequestration. The partnerships include more than 350 organizations, spanning 43 states and four Canadian provinces. The RCSPs are developing the framework needed to validate and deploy carbon sequestration technologies. The RCSPs will determine which of the numerous sequestration approaches are best suited for their specific regions of the country and identify regulatory and infrastructure requirements that will be needed should policy and economics indicate that sequestration be deployed on a wide scale. The RCSP initiative is being implemented in three phases. The

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→