MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091411147 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2020.1821614

COVID-19 and global oil markets

2020· article· fr· W3091411147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam Hanieh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFellCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Shock (circulatory)Fossil fuelOil priceEconomicsPeak oilPandemicBusinessNatural resource economicsEconomyAgricultural economicsClimate changeGeographyMonetary economicsOceanographyEngineeringGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic that spread rapidly across the world in early 2020 delivered a profound shock to oil markets and the broader fossil fuel industry. With demand for energy in free-fall as a result of the pandemic, world oil markets were simultaneously hit by the March 2020 “Oil Price War” between Russia and Saudi Arabia, which promised to significantly increase global supplies. As a result, global oil prices fell to multi-decade lows, and producers rushed to find storage space on land and sea for their oil rather than sell it at a loss. Remarkably, the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell into negative territory in mid-April 2020 as traders holding contracts for physical delivery were forced to pay others to take oil off their hands due to lack of storage space. This contribution maps the intersecting factors at the root of this moment of extreme crisis, asking what all this might mean for the organisation and power of the global oil industry moving forward.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207