Where in the World are Canadian Oil and Gas Companies? 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is well recognized for its prominence as an oil and gas jurisdiction in regard to its resources within its own borders. However, there is little available analysis and information regarding the presence of Canadian companies in the international arena. Begun in 2011 as an internal research tool for the development of the Extractive Resource Governance Program, this project seeks to answer the vital question: Where in the world are Canadian oil and gas companies? To answer this question, firm-level data from publicly traded Canadian companies are collected and analyzed, culminating in the development of an online tool for public use. This map allows interested users to geographically locate jurisdictions around the world where publicly traded Canadian oil and gas (hereafter O&G) companies have activities, over time. The map is available at http://www.policyschool.ca/ research-teaching/teaching-training/extractive-resource-governance/ergp-map/. This project, hereafter referred to as the WIW project, provides a measure that quantifies Canadian oil and gas activity around the world and identifies key jurisdictions that are of particular interest to Canadian O&G companies. The data collected holds value for various stakeholders such as governments, regulatory bodies, academia, civil society, and industry across the extractive resource spectrum. Prior to further discussion regarding the 2011 annual data results, it is valuable to provide a brief overview of the methodology used in the collection of data for this research project. The WIW project examines the global activities of Canadian O&G companies in 218 countries spanning seven international regions of analysis.1 The aim of the WIW project is to examine the international presence of Canadian companies in foreign countries. As such, it is important to note that this project does not provide information related to the activities of Canadian companies within Canada’s border, such as the number of active companies or levels of production. The focus of this project is on two types of Canadian O&G companies, namely exploration and production (E&P) companies and service companies. For the purposes of the WIW project, an O&G company is defined to be “Canadian” if it meets two selection criteria: (i) the company must have its headquarters (or head office)2 in Canada; and (ii) the company must be publicly traded on a Canadian exchange.3 Companies must fulfill both selection criteria simultaneously to be considered a Canadian O&G company, and thus be included in the findings of this project. This report, the first in a series, provides an extensive account of annual data collected in the WIW project for the 2011 year of study. It begins with an overview of the international activities of Canadian E&P companies, presenting the level of activities in a regional context, as well as on a country basis. The report then continues by providing the same analysis for Canadian O&G service companies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".