Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forum - Young professionals discuss the future of energy. A total of 480 readers responded fully to the survey. As shown in Fig. 1a, the company category of the respondents included integrated (major) oil and gas company (31%), service/manufacturing company (23%), independent oil and gas company (21%), national oil and gas company (11%), consultant (6%), academia (4%), government (2%), and others (2%). Concerning work experience, almost two-thirds of the respondents have less than 5 years' experience. The male/female ratio was 85/15. Most respondents were younger than 35. The answers strongly correlated with the primary work location, the data on which are shown in Fig. 1b. Oil and Gas Will oil and gas remain the major energy source for the 21st century? As shown in Fig. 2, 78% of the respondents answered affirmatively. Some points to support this belief includeNew exploration along with improved oil-recovery technology will increase oil recovery to almost 80%, making oil and gas the main energy source until 2070 to 2080.As new, cost-effective ways of storing and transporting natural gas develop, we will help sustain energy supply through the ability to tap into previously uneconomic resources that used to be flared off.Deepwater opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico and west Africa, combined with Canadian tar sands and enhanced oil recovery in the Middle East, will keep oil in the USD 60/bbl range. This is high enough to support these types of projects, but not high enough to make alternatives competitive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.185 | 0.064 |
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".