Rating and Evaluating the Combined Financial and Environmental Performance of Companies in the Metals and Mining Sector
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 basic intent in financial performance evaluation is to appraise current business operations internally and to benchmark them against similar business operations externally in order to identify best-in-class practices. In this paper, a new positive environmental/financial screening approach that can simultaneously include a wide combination of regulatory, technological, operational and event dimensions is created for the analyzing, rating, ranking, benchmarking, and selecting of companies from an industry sector. A method is provided that advances the use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for rating and ranking diverse groups of companies using a combination of both financial and environmental performance measures. This novel approach proceeds by first stratifying the sector into comparably efficient groups of companies through the construction of a series of efficient DEA frontiers, and then by ranking each company within these groups relative to DEA-based contextual attractiveness measures calculated from the different partitions. The method is illustrated through an application to a group of companies from the Metals and Mining Industry sector.
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 | 0.005 | 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 it