Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEW OF GROUP END-2000 PROVED OIL AND GAS RESERVES SUMMARY PREPARATION In accordance with prescribed US Accounting Principles (SFAS69), StEP staff have prepared a summary of Group equity proved and proved developed oil and gas reserves for the year 2000. The summary (Atl 3) forms part Of the supplementary information that will be-Ju;esented in the 2000 Group Annual Reports and has been prepared on the basis of information provided by Group and Associated companies. The sUbmissions by these companies (excluding those by Shell Canada) are based on the procedures laid down In the ·Petroleum Resource Volumes Guidelines · (EP 2000-1100/1101) which In tum are based on the requirements of SFAS 69. Shell Canada's submissions are subject to their own procedures and reviews. o'have reviewed the process of preparing the above-summary of proved and proved developed oil and gas., reserves In as far as these relate to companies outside Canada. This review included, where possible, a verification of the reasonableness of major reserves changes and any omissions of such changes, as appropriate. The end-2000 Group share Proved Reserves (excluding Canadian oil sands) can be summarised as'follows: o 011 m1n m3 1.1.2000 2000 1,1,2001 Repl.Ralio RRTol' \\ 1,1.2001 Prov. RR RR Oev'd Gasblnm3 Proved ToI " P/'Oej'n Proved 1ol1 (RR) TOIl ex-A&D DeY'd Dev'd exA&D
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.896 | 0.854 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".