Integrated Method for Designing Valuable Flexibility in Oil Development Projects
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
Summary This paper presents an integrated method for identifying and inserting valuable flexibility into major projects. It builds upon recent work that (1) documents how errors in estimates can bias the selection of design concepts, (2) shows how concept flexibility can improve the project performance, and (3) usefully illustrates the probability distribution of outcomes. It involves: (1) developing and evaluating a base case design, (2) exploring the outcomes this design might generate, (3) identifying opportunities for flexible design, and (4) evaluating and selecting the most valuable flexibility to incorporate into the design. It embodies a paradigmatic change in the way designers deal with uncertainty: instead of basing a design on fixed assumptions and then testing its sensitivity to risks, the approach recognizes risks in the design process and thereby develops valuable flexibility that increases the expected value of projects. A case study of an oil platform development in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates the method.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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