MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194600971 · doi:10.1561/103.00000039

Estimation of an Efficient Production Frontier with Increasing Marginal Product: The Case of the Canadian Oil and Gas Industry

2021· article· en· W3194600971 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yan Ma, Han‐Up Park

Bibliographic record

VenueData Envelopment Analysis Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierProduction (economics)EstimationProduct (mathematics)Petroleum industryEconomicsEconometricsFossil fuelIndustrial organizationPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceMicroeconomicsMathematicsEngineeringWaste managementGeographyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The convexity axiom in conventional DEA models requires non-increasing marginal product (Banker et al., 1984, BCC). Banker and Maindiratta (1986, BM) suggest a DEA model with log-transformed input and output values that allow for both increasing and decreasing marginal products. By using simulated data and the Canadian oil and gas industry data, we document that the BM model outperforms the BCC model in estimating the efficiency frontier when the production function exhibits increasing marginal product. The BM model also reduces biases in the second-stage analysis of efficiency, providing additional insights that are not available from using the BCC model. Our analysis suggests that relatively small O&G companies may forego efficiency gains by not scaling up their businesses and that using the BM model is desirable when the production function is believed to exhibit increasing marginal product.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.223
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Envelopment Analysis JournalSame topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207