Can Nuclear Energy Stimulates Economic Growth? Evidence from Highly Industrialised Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to examine the causal relationship between nuclear energy consumption and economic growth for four industrialised countries; the US, Canada, Japan, and France, between 1965 to 2010. In a multivariate framework that accounts for other key determinants such that of oil demand and price, a modified version of the Granger causality test developed by Toda and Yamamoto (1995) is applied. Results show that there is one-way causality from nuclear energy consumption to economic growth in Japan denoting that an energy conservation policy that aims to minimise nuclear energy consumption may adversely affect economic growth. Oppositely, increasing real GDP causes additional nuclear energy consumption in France. In the US and Canada, there is evidence that support the neutrality hypothesis. Looking at the other investigated channels, the level of real oil prices seems to have a vital role in deriving the demand for nuclear power in three out of four countries. There is also a causal linkage between oil and nuclear energy consumption in the US, Japan, and France, suggesting that the uncertainty surrounding the global oil market plays a key role in determining the demand for nuclear energy. This means that the policies in these countries should endeavor to overcome the constrains on nuclear energy consumption to face any un-expected hikes in oil prices, which may adversely affect economic growth in such oil importing countries
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".