MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061215019 · doi:10.1017/s1355770x13000582

Production-based versus consumption-based emission targets: implications for developing and developed economies

2013· article· en· W2061215019 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Development Economics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance InnovationEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsProduction (economics)Consumption (sociology)Computable general equilibriumNatural resource economicsEnergy consumptionGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceInternational economicsEnvironmental economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper evaluates how the marginal abatement cost (MAC) and the efficiency cost of policies will change at the regional and global level if reduction targets are based on consumption-based emissions (CBEs) rather than on production-based emissions (PBEs). Using a CGE model, this paper finds that the MAC of CBEs is in general higher than that of PBEs, mainly due to limited substitution possibilities between energy and non-energy goods in final consumption compared to those in the choice of inputs in production activities under PBEs. Interestingly, when policies such as border carbon adjustments (BCAs) are introduced to reduce CBEs, net importers of emissions are better off, while net exporters of emissions are worse off in this approach compared to the PBEs target. If border tariffs are not allowed, the CBEs target turns out to be worse both for net importers and exporters of emissions.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.211 · 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