MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What causes mining asset impairments?

2024· article· en· W4392024092 on OpenAlex
Andrew Gillis, John Steen, W. Scott Dunbar, Andrew von Nordenflycht

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResources Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset (computer security)BusinessNatural resource economicsEconomicsComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the recorded value of an asset on a mining company's balance sheet exceeds its market value or its value in use, an impairment must be declared. While impairments have been shown to be a common occurrence across mining companies, they also are a major contributor to the industry's low average returns. To better understand the causes and predictors of mining impairments, we collected and analyzed the 266 impairments declared by TSX-listed mining firms between 2002 and 2015. As to the stated reasons for impairments, we find that declines in metal prices account for over half of all impairments, with none of the other eight categories representing more than 13%. To identify factors that might predict future impairments, we drew on the literature on major infrastructure projects. Consistent with this literature, we find that the degree of impairments is higher at mines in developing countries and at mines where the geographic location and mining processes are new to the company operating the mine. Our findings point to several dimensions along which mining firms should seek to improve their forecasting processes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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