MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406731253 · doi:10.1111/fire.12428

Real options investments: Lessons from the US shale gas industry

2025· article· en· W4406731253 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWest Virginia Science and Research, West Virginia Higher Education Policy CommissionUniversity of AlbertaWest Virginia Higher Education Policy CommissionState Council of Higher Education for Virginia
KeywordsInvestment (military)BusinessReturn on investmentNatural gasPetroleum industryFinanceNatural resource economicsEconomicsProduction (economics)EngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using detailed project‐level investment data from the U.S. upstream natural gas industry, we examine the effect of the unexercised real options on individual firms’ real options investments. Drilling an unconventional well is a real options investment that is exercised by fracturing and completing the drilled well at an opportune time. We find a small negative but statistically significant effect of the number of unexercised options on real options investments. There is also a significant difference in the effect of unexercised real options on real options investment decisions of publicly traded and privately held firms.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.241 · 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