Defining Major Oil and Gas Companies’ Development Strategies in the Era of Energy Transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy market today is turbulent. Nations follow different energy trends and shape their policies towards Energy Transition and sustainable development. To avoid risks and pursue opportunities, oil and gas companies must adapt their longterm strategies to macro-trends and national regulations.The study's objective is to investigate how major oil and gas companies’ development trends correlate with trends and strategies at the national level. The hypothesis is that oil and gas companies’ operations and innovation portfolios are linked to national energy mixes and environmental regulations. To do this, the authors examined the energy markets of 54 countries with the focus on Brazil, Canada, China, EU, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UK, the USA, operational indicators, and innovation development trends of 18 major oil and gas companies. The production volumes have been translated into an ordinal scale and analyzed with the use of Spearman correlation.The study confirmed a weak correlation between oil and gas companies' operational indicators and national strategies. Companies operating in countries with strict environmental regulations, primarily in the European Economic Area, have been more likely to adapt their businesses to energy transition while building up oil and gas production; they also have had more diversified innovation portfolios. As more countries moved towards later generations of environmental regulations, the increase in renewable energy investments was found in more oil and gas majors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".