Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world is currently using up oil at somewhere between four and nine times the rate it is being discovered. The 'depletionists' (or peak theorists) maintain that a sudden downturn in oil output is imminent, resulting in sharp prices increases that will lead to economic and social turmoil. In contrast, the anti-depletionists (represented by international energy agencies, major producers and the oil companies) is that rather than having used half the world's oil reserves, we have used closer to one quarter and that the outlook to 2030 represents no cause for concern. Oil supplies, it is argued, will keep pace with demand, despite the forecast growth in countries such as China. Prices, which the antidepletionists argue signal an impending shortage of oil, have not shown a long-term upward trend. While there have been dramatic price rises in the past, these have reflected market control by OPEC countries rather then a gradually exhausting resource. This paper reviews the main areas of debate between the depletionists and antidepletionists, with particular emphasis on the policy implications of both approaches. (a) For the covering entry of this conference, please see ITRD abstract no. E211825.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it