MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041906308 · doi:10.1068/c9752

Beauty and the Beast? BP's and Exxon's Positions on Global Climate Change

2000· article· en· W2041906308 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeBeautyGlobal warmingPolitical scienceEconomyEconomicsLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author attempts first to determine whether there are significant differences among the major oil companies' positions on global climate change, and second to discover the reasons behind any differences found. The investigation focuses upon Exxon and BP Amoco—two of the world's largest oil companies. The differences between the two, with regard to their attitudes and actions on global climate change, are striking: whereas Exxon is continuing to act as one might initially expect (resisting proactive policies on climate change), BP Amoco appears more willing to contemplate a world that uses less oil. Attempts to explain these differences focus upon the companies' respective interests, their management structures, and their nationalities. It appears that all factors are important, at least to some degree. The paper concludes with a discussion of research limitations and suggestions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it