MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367159359 · doi:10.1021/cen-09917-feature1

C&EN’s top 50 US chemical producers

2021· article· en· W4367159359 on OpenAlex
Alex Tullo

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC&EN Global Enterprise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical industryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Quarter (Canadian coin)BusinessPandemicDemographic economicsEconomicsAgricultural economicsChemistryHistoryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like companies everywhere, US chemical makers were buffeted last year by COVID-19. Lockdowns due to the pandemic slowed economic activity to a crawl, and firms scrambled to respond by cutting capital spending and other costs. The pandemic’s effects are reflected in C&EN’s latest survey of the top 50 US chemical producers, which is based on data from 2020. The 50 firms combined for $250.9 billion in chemical sales, 10.1% lower than what they had posted a year earlier. Profits declined even more sharply. The 46 firms that report chemical operating income combined for $24.8 billion, down 15.6%. The results were worse in the depths of the pandemic, in April and May of last year. Many chemical companies saw chemical sales fall more than 20% in the second quarter last year. For example, Dow reported a sales drop of 24.2% in the period, compared with a 10.3% decline for the full

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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