Bibliographic record
Abstract
ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱ¢ȱ ȱŗŗǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ ¢ȱ Concern about exports of United States crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil periodically draws Congressional attention to the level of these exports, recently observed to increase from 1.4 million barrels daily in 2007, to nearly 1.9 mbd during January-September 2008.Some policymakers have suggested that prohibiting oil exports would lower prices.Legislation introduced in the 110 th Congress (H.R. 6515, S. 2598) included provisions prohibiting some or all oil exports, or would have reimposed the ban on Alaskan oil exports; but no bills received major attention.Virtually all U.S. oil exports are of refined products, and no crude is exported from the West Coast.A trickle of crude oil, in a range of 25,000 barrels per day during the first nine months of 2008, is sent to Canada from the upper Midwest.However, as Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States, providing nearly 1.9 mbd in 2008 (also through September), the U.S. crude sent to Canada is of limited significance.The United States does export some gasoline to Canada and Mexico, and middle distillates to Latin America, but some of this product would not meet U.S. environmental standards.An additional roughly 40% of U.S. oil exports are of "heavier" products, such as residual fuel oil and petroleum coke, for which there is insufficient market in the United States.Because the market for oil is global, a prohibition on U.S. oil exports would have negligible effect on price.Such a restriction would only cause a rebalancing in the movement of petroleum because countries that had purchased U.S. oil products would need to find them from other suppliers.Restrictions on exports might, in fact, create inefficiencies in the movement of world oil supplies that could foster less optimal distribution of oil and possibly lead to higher prices in some markets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.036 |
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".