MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166423564 · doi:10.7202/800747ar

L’exploration des ressources extractives non renouvelables : théorie économique, processus stochastique et vérification

2009· article· en· W2166423564 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)CertaintyEconomicsEconometricsMathematical economicsComputer scienceOperations researchMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the literature devoted to the "theory of the mine" has been developed under certainty. It has been unable to explain the activity of exploration. The stochastic models of exploration were developed quasi-independently from economic theory. The purpose of this article is to survey both the mining and economic literature related to the "theory of the mine" under uncertainty and the exploration models since the turn of the century. The survey is complementary to the one made in this journal by F. Peterson and A.C. Fisher. The first part defines exploration as being essentially a search and information gathering activity. It reviews the contributions to the economic theory of exploration and resource stock uncertainty. It compares the optimal extraction path and the life cycle of the mine under stock uncertainty and stock certainty. It shows in particular that increasing the rate of discount is generally inappropriate to take account of stock uncertainty. Some partial equilibrium results on exploration are given as well. The presence of stock uncertainty or exploration in a general equilibrium model is shown to jeopardize the optimality of competitive allocations. The second part points out the wealth of the theoretical and empirical analysis of exploration as a stochastic process. It first reviews the literature on size distributions of reserves which gives strong theoretical and empirical support to the lognormal hypothesis. It then goes on to the exploration models which roughly speaking can be broken down into two groups. The Allais type models, better suited for relatively unexplored regions, which combine a Poisson or negative binomial process for discovery with a lognormal distribution for sizes. The Arps-Roberts-Kaufman type models, more adequate for "mature" regions, assume exhaustive sampling with probability proportional to size of discovery. Generally the treatment of the discovery process, to be distinguished from the sampling for sizes, and the handling of geological information are still woefully inadequate. The third and last part of the survey points out the gap which exists in the microeconomic literature about the study of random inputs. It suggests that the theory of dams and insurance and the theory of search especially adaptive search could be fruitfully used. Problems which remain to be tackled are the influence of stock uncertainty on grade of ore mined and on investment in capacity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · 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