Implementation of risk management and corporate sustainability in the Canadian oil and gas industry
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
Purpose With the increasingly complex global environment companies are facing increased regulations. Financial and social risks are often overlooked but the key in establishing the necessary framework for risk management. Under pressure(s) from the media, public and government, the current companies within the oil and gas fields have taken precautionary steps to reduce their carbon footprint and have allowed technological innovations to take a proactive role in maintaining efficiency and sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework outlining how organizations are implementing risk assessment and analysis to determine sustainable operations and methods in developing low-risk outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a case study approach to develop and illustrate the risk management framework. Findings This study provides a theoretical framework for analyzing and reducing risk within the oil and gas sector through explaining various means of innovation and sustainability. Risk integration and mitigation are modeled and quantified within an evolutionary framework. The case study illustrates the risk management techniques currently used in a corporate setting. Originality/value Using innovation and sustainable technologies, organizations can take a proactive role in reducing risk in the oil and gas industry in northern Alberta. Providing shareholders with an innovative framework dealing with strategic implications to reduce risk in compliance with operational costs.
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 | 0.038 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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