MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761068349

Oilfield Minerals: : Year in Review 2014

2015· article· en· W2761068349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kasia Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil shaleDrillingQuarter (Canadian coin)Agricultural economicsEngineeringMining engineeringGeologyGeographyNatural resource economicsWaste managementArchaeologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rig counts for onshore drilling, a major end market for silica (frac) sand, barite (barytes), bentonite and proppant minerals, continued to drop globally, particularly in North America, in the first half of the year, although by the third quarter the pace of decline had slowed. Changes in technology used by oil and gas exploration firms, as companies drill more stages per well in order to cut costs, have led to the price of oil becoming more detached from rig count figures and a less concrete indicator of demand for oilfield minerals, as more frac sand is being used per well. In Q2, US-based Eagle Materials Inc. reported a 68% decline in frac sand volumes and financial losses were reported by other oilfield mineral players including Baker Hughes Inc., Halliburton, Carbo Ceramics Inc. and Fairmount Santrol Inc. Logistics costs have become increasingly relevant to frac sand profit margins, prompting some suppliers to integrate distribution capacity. Trump has expressed his avid support for the fossil fuels sector and put forward plans to open onshore and offshore rig leasing on federal land, eliminate moratoria on coal leasing and open shale energy deposits, with the aim of becoming independent of imported energy from the...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial MineralsSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207