Economic Analysis of Frequent Disasters in Chinese Coal-mining Enterprises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disasters occurred frequently in Chinese coal-mining enterprises has attracted significant coverage from the whole society. Employer will invest in safety and health improvement until the cost is more than the expense of paying higher wages, compensation of employees’ death and other accident and illness costs. Thus, market price of product, rate of worker’ wage and government regulation are highly imperfect alternatives concerning the reduction of disasters in coal and mine enterprises. As a result, continued reliance on all three approaches, a rational mechanism among government, employee and employer should be established. Key Words: Disasters in coal-mining enterprises; Market price of product; Rate of workers’ wage; Government regulation cost Résumé Les désastres fréquentes dans les mines chinoises ont attiré l’attention de tous les milieux sociaux. Les employeurs ne pourront investir pour l’amélioration de la sécurité et de la santé qu’au moment où le coût est largement supérieur à la dépense du saleire, à la compensation de la santé des employés et à d’autres coûts d’accidents et de maladies. Pourtant, le prix du marché des produits, le taux du salaires des employés et à la régulation gouvernementale sont imparfaits dans les interventions de l’amélioration de l’environnement. Pour réduires les désastres des mines, il faut trois solutions de régulation pour créer un système de fonctionnement logique. Mots-clés: Les désastres dans les mines chinoises, le prix du marché des produits, le taux du salaires des employés, le coût de la régulation gouvernementale 摘 è¦ ä½”æ“šä¸åœ‹èƒ½æºé‡è¦åœ°ä½çš„礦æ¥ä¼æ¥å…§é »ç¹ç™¼ç”Ÿçš„礦難引起社會å„界的關注。åªæœ‰å°å·¥äººçš„補償大於改善環境的支付時，礦主æ‰æœƒç‚ºæ”¹å–„生產環境安全狀æ³æŠ•è³‡ã€‚æ–‡ç« é€šéŽå°å½±éŸ¿ç¤¦ä¸»è¡Œç‚ºçš„產å“å¸‚å ´åƒ¹æ ¼ã€å·¥äººå·¥ä½œçŽ‡å’Œæ”¿åºœè¦è£½æˆæœ¬çš„經濟å¸åˆ†æžï¼Œé—¡è¿°äº†ç¤¦é›£å±¢ç¦ä¸æ¢çš„åŽŸå› ã€‚ç”¢å“å¸‚å ´åƒ¹æ ¼ã€å·¥äººå·¥ä½œçŽ‡å’Œæ”¿åºœè¦è£½æˆæœ¬åœ¨æ”¹å–„安全環境方é¢çš„作用，都是有缺陷的。è¦æ¸›å°‘ç¤¦é›£çš„ç™¼ç”Ÿï¼Œå¿…é ˆç¶œåˆé‹ç”¨ä¸‰ç¨®èª¿ç¯€æ–¹å¼ï¼Œå»ºç«‹åˆç†çš„é‹è¡Œæ©Ÿåˆ¶ã€‚é—œéµè©žï¼šç¤¦é›£ï¼›ç”¢å“å¸‚å ´åƒ¹æ ¼ï¼›å·¥äººå·¥è³‡çŽ‡ï¼›æ”¿åºœè¦è£½æˆæœ¬
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".