MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071760302 · doi:10.2118/01-06-ge

Retention of Key Employees in the Oilfield Service Sector

2001· article· en· W2071760302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMultinational corporationIncentiveMarketingParent companyEmployee retentionFinanceOperations managementSubsidiaryEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prior to 1994 Core Laboratories offered its employees little in the way of company benefits. The company moved from being part of a multinational to an independently owned organization in 1994. At this time, there was recognition that if the newly created company was to be successful in a competitive environment then retention of its key employees was essential. A series of concrete measures were introduced in October 1994. This included health, long term disability and dental benefits and a profit share component to all employees. In addition, for key employees, discretionary bonuses for non-management employees, management incentive plans and stock options were introduced. This paper discusses the benefit and incentive plans, its cost and the impact it has had on the company's employees. Introduction Core Laboratories (Core) was formed in 1936 in Dallas Texas. In 1949, the company created its first international office-in Edmonton, Canada. During the next five decades the company expanded its overseas locations and now operates in more than 50 countries and has over 100 facilities worldwide. In 1984, the company was purchased by a multinational organization. Ten years later, in 1994, a management buy out of the company took place. In September 1995, the company became publicly traded. Prior to 1994, the company adopted local country benefit plans as stipulated by the Government of the day. The company at this time viewed the lack of or minimal benefits plan as a cost saving venture. The parent company did not take into account the affect on morale, employee retention and loyalty that these limited plans provided. The change of ownership in 1994 presented the opportunity for Core to re-assess its benefits package and introduce an incentive plan for its worldwide employees. Benefits In some countries of the world, health and dental services are provided free of charge while others provide limited or no benefits to its employees. It was these latter categories that Core wished to address. The benefits introduced to Core's worldwide employees were based upon modified Canadian and United States plans. Basic health care and hospital accommodations for the employee and dependents were introduced to all regions. This was compulsory for all employees. Core and the employee share the cost. Additional extended health care was introduced, on a voluntary basis, to cover items such as home nursing care, physiotherapy, etc. Both employer and employee again share the cost. Dental coverage was introduced at the same time and covers basic and major dentistry as well as preventative treatment. Two compulsory insurance plans were implemented. The first is life insurance, with all premiums paid by the employer. A voluntary life insurance is offered for further coverage for the employee and dependents. The second, a split cost between employer and employee is the long-term disability insurance. In the event of disability, 60﹪ of an individual's base salary is paid until they either return to employment or reach retirement age. The short-term disabilityis covered by internal procedures and is dependent upon length of service.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207