MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747151459 · doi:10.1071/aj13072

Balancing the people equation—how enhanced collaboration can help solve labour challenges in the LNG industry

2014· article· en· W2747151459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffrey Cann, Steve Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceProductivityBusinessCommoditySustainabilityFlexibility (engineering)Compensation (psychology)Economic shortageIndustrial organizationLabour economicsEconomicsFinanceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The operating environment of the LNG industry is increasingly complex as companies must balance the management of present and expected growth amidst growing economic uncertainty, volatile commodity prices and increasing environmental and regulatory pressures. Additionally, growth in the industry is shifting workforce challenges and shaping human capital trends. These workforce challenges include:attraction and retention of talent;labour and skills shortages;managing employee turnover/retention;compensation expectations; and,productivity and employee engagement. As long as projects address this problem individually, the prospects for retaining skilled employees, improving sustainable productivity and driving labour costs down are limited. A collaborative industry approach is required to minimise risk and cost for all, while still providing ample employment and development opportunities in the sector. This extended abstract explores industry collaboration as a means to addressing labour challenges, it presents evidence about how the Canadian Oil Sands industry approached this issue, and it discusses people collaboration opportunities for Australian LNG.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207