MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953571263 · doi:10.1504/ijams.2019.10022349

Relative efficiency measurement of Canadian mining companies

2019· article· en· W2953571263 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Management Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer scienceIndustrial organization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mining industry, one of Canada's most important sectors, is opined to be experiencing productivity issues as one of its most important issues. We perform the first efficiency analysis of Canadian mining firms using data envelopment analysis. We compute technical, managerial and scale efficiencies for a sample of 30 listed mining firms during the period 2011-2015. Our results confirm that, overall, the firms exhibit low to average technical efficiencies, largely due to managerial inefficiencies. Further, their technical and managerial efficiencies have been declining during the 2011-2015 period. Finally, sub-sectorial analysis shows that gold and diamond, gemstones, platinum and precious metal mining firms perform the best on scale efficiency, while general mining companies set the standard for managerial efficiency.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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