The Structure and Contributions of Relational Contracts: Theory and Evidence from Oil and Gas Unit Operating Agreements
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This paper provides new theoretical clarification and empirical evidence about relational contracts written for the exploitation of oil and gas reservoirs in the United States and Canada. To mitigate common pool losses, oil fields often are developed under unit operating agreements. These agreements are classical relational contracts: They are long term (often 20 years or more), include many parties (typically ten or more firms), involve considerable uncertainty about geological and economic conditions, address site-specific investments, and align the incentives of the oil-producing firms over the life of the contract to maximize the economic value of the reservoir without repeated re contracting. The paper presents a theoretical framework describing the essential elements necessary for unit operating agreements to be successful as relational contracts. It examines 60 unit operating agreements to determine whether the theoretical provisions are found empirically."
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it