Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy company TransCanada wants to build an oil pipeline that will run from Alberta, Canada and through five states before joining with existing pipeline to Texas. Although proponents say that the Keystone XL pipeline will reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil resources, lower gasoline prices, and create jobs, there has also been much opposition to the pipeline. Opponents are concerned about the possible environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline route. Constructing the pipeline will destroy topsoil in an area where establishing grass and crops is notoriously difficult. Ranchers worry that oil spills will harm their livestock. Property owners are also angry about the forceful tactics that are being used by TransCanada to acquire land. The local governments affected by the pipeline tend to be small, rural and inexperienced with dealing with large entities like TransCanada, and so there are fears that negotiations might not result in a significant benefit to the communities on the pipeline route. The U.S. State Department is still evaluating whether the pipeline is in the nation’s interest, and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality is studying the environmental impacts of the pipeline route, so indications are that the pipeline will eventually be approved, but not in the immediate future.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".