MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963471014 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v7n9p226

The Effects of the Global Financial Crisis on Automobile Demand in China

2015· article· en· W1963471014 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui-Yen Lee, Hsin-Hong Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial crisisChinaPersonal incomeEconomicsIncome elasticity of demandBusinessFinanceLabour economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examined the factors influencing Chinese auto demand from 2001 to 2013, using multi-regression analysis. This study also investigated the effects of the recent global financial crisis on Chinese automobile demand, and compared the results with those found for three different periods of time. According to the empicral results, the main factors influencing the quantity of Chinese automobile demand before the global financial crisis were the price of automobiles, the price of gasoline, the lending rate and the personal disposable income. The main factors of influencing the Chinese auto demand during the global financial crisis were the price of automobiles, the lending rate and the personal disposable income. Only one main factor influenced Chinese auto demand after the global financial crisis, and this was the personal disposable income. The income elasticity of the demand was 0.270, 0.928 and 0.243 before, during and after the global financial crisis, respectively. The results show that automobiles are a normal good and that the personal disposable income is a very important factor in people’s decisions whether or not to purchase an automobile in China. Moreover, automobiles were almost a luxury good during the global financial crisis, with the influence of personal income rising more three-fold during this period. Furthermore, the effects of the global financial crisis on Chinese automobile demand has been very significant.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207