MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037541335 · doi:10.1504/ijor.2021.10016199

Efficiency Measurement of Canadian Oil and Gas Companies

2018· article· en· W3037541335 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 Operational Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringFossil fuelBusinessProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we perform an efficiency analysis of Canadian oil and gas firms. Using data envelopment analysis, technical, managerial and scale scores from ten samples built from 110 oil and gas companies, listed in Canadian stock exchanges, are computed for the years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. Our analysis, supported by appropriate statistical tests, confirms that the Canadian oil and gas industry exhibited predominantly low overall technical efficiency levels both for each of the years and overall for the four years. We have observed that the main source of inefficiencies was the management of operations. In addition, we have seen consistently that across the samples, a statistically significant relationship exists between the efficiency scores and the size of the companies. Finally, we have observed the existence of a relationship between the efficiency scores and the type of producer (pure oil vs. oil and gas), but we could not reach conclusions on the best performer that was consistent across the samples.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.177 · 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