EFFECT OF INNOVATION IN UNCONVENTIONAL OIL INDUSTRY: CASE OF ESTONIA AND CANADA; pp. 279–294
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
The objective of this paper is to compare the economic effects of innovation in an unconventional oil industry, based on Estonian and Canadian experiences with oil shale and oil sands, respectively. Both unconventional oil resources face similar challenges and need to resolve these through innovation. Based on empirical evidence, this paper concludes that innovation is a key mechanism of increasing efficiencies and triggering investments. Investments themselves, due to their nature, represent the best measure of the economic effect of cumulative innovation in the unconvenÂtional hydrocarbons industry.  The paper proceeds in the following manner. First, we will briefly review the relevant literature and identify definitions of innovation and its impact on economic growth. In the second part, we will point out the effects of innovation in the energy industry on economic growth, and the uniqueness of energy innovation. Then we will present data on public and private R and D expenditure in the oil sands industry in Canada, as well as evidence of the results and economic effect comparatively to the R and D effort in Estonian oil shale industry. Lastly, we will draw conclusions by discussing our findings. The results are relevant to indicate R and D expenditure necessary to sustain investments and economic effects of developing unconventional hydrocarbon mineral resources.
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