A methodological framework for organizational risk management in energy companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy production has always been associated with a number of operational (technological) risks as well as risks resulting from external events.A large number of tools has emerged recently that utilize complex software solutions to minimize such risks, which shows in a significant reduction of failures at energy facilities in the past few years and a growth in the key performance indicators of energy businesses.The most difficult ones to assess and prevent are organizational risks.The probability of such risks increases alongside the progress of structural transformations in the global energy sector.Such risks, despite their internal nature, are capable of triggering serious deformations within the governance system of an energy company and, given the specific features of the energy sector, lead to a sharp performance drop across the industry.The article presents a methodological framework for operational risk management in energy companies that is based upon the idea of identifying the priority results of companies' performance.The proposed methodology is essentially about forming the risk space of an energy company and using it as a basis for quantitative assessment of the probability of risk events.This will in turn make it possible to identify critical organizational risks, assess anticipated damage and think of preventive management impact to offset the risk events.
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 | 0.036 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".