The Legal Continental Shelf: The Surprising Canadian Practice Regarding Oil and Gas Development in the Atlantic Coast Continental Shelf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actions of the Government of Canada and the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, such as interprovincial delimitation of the continental shelf, exclusive exploitation of continental shelf resources, and exclusion of all or part of the revenues generated by these resources from equalization calculations, create the impression of provincial ownership of the continental shelf. This is not the case. In fact, contrary to widely held views, the continental shelf belongs to no one. International law does not grant coastal states sovereignty over the continental shelf. Instead, it grants sovereign rights to explore and exploit the continental shelf. These rights, born of a process of political compromise, belong to the federal government. Consequently, the most common argument for excluding non-renewable resources from equalization calculations (namely, that they belong to the provinces) cannot apply to continental shelf resources. The Canadian practice regarding oil and gas development in the Atlantic coast continental shelf is, from both a legal and political standpoint, all the more surprising given that the Canadian federation is said to be held together by the principle of equalization.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".