MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810020018

Tesla Q4 deliveries down on transport issues

2017· article· en· W2810020018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Myles McCormick

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Automotive industryTruckProduction (economics)SubsidyBusinessEngineeringOperations managementAgricultural scienceAgricultural economicsEconomicsGeographyAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electric vehicle producer saw deliveries fall below target as a result of 'short-term production challenges'. Tesla Motors Inc. reported Q4 2016 deliveries of 22,200 vehicles, meaning it missed its H2 target of 50,000 vehicles by 3,300 vehicles. The Q4 figure marks a 9% drop on Q3, when the automaker delivered 24,500 vehicles. Tesla CEO Elon Musk. (Source: JD Lasica) In a statement, the company said short-term production meant Q4 vehicle production was weighted more heavily towards the end of the quarter than planned. While it recovered enough to hit its production goal, the delay in production in challenges that impacted quarterly deliveries, including, among other things, cars missing shipping cutoffs for Europe and Asia, Tesla noted. In total this resulted in 2,750 vehicles missing delivery during the quarter. Tesla produced 24,882 vehicles during the quarter, bringing total 2016 production to 83,922 vehicles, a 64% increase on 2015. Tesla has garnered a lot of publicity recently, bringing production online at its Reno, Nevada, US battery gigafactory in January. China continues to lead the market for EVs in terms of both supply and demand, however. It recently confirmed its 2017 EV subsidy programme, prompting speculation that lithium prices may rise again. At the Advanced Automotive Battery Conference in Mainz, Germany in February, participants heard over 600,000 EVs were sold globally in January to November 2016.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial MineralsSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207