MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081180545 · doi:10.1111/1540-5982.00117

Green national income and expenditure

2002· article· en· W2081180545 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert D. Cairns

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic rentWelfare economicsNational accountsEconomicsMeasures of national income and outputStock (firearms)HumanitiesGeographyMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distinguishing between national income and expenditure helps to shed light on some issues in green national accounting, including capital gains. Although their total is the same, different types of depreciation should be defined differently in the income and expenditure accounts. For example, there are two ways to define the depletion of non‐renewable resources. If depletion is defined as the resource rent, the unit value of the resource stock exceeds the current rent. If resource rent is viewed in terms of the resource’s contribution to national income, the stock can be valued at the current rent but depletion is less than resource rent. JEL classification: E20, Q30 Revenus et dépenses nationaux verts. Le fait de distinguer le revenu national et la dépense nationale aide àéclairer certains problèmes dans la comptabilité nationale verte, y compris en ce qui a trait aux gains de capitaux. Même si leur total est le même, différents types d’amortissement devraient être utilisés dans les comptes de revenus et de dépenses. Par exemple, il y a deux manières de définir l’épuisement des ressources non‐renouvelables. Si l’épuisement est défini par la rente sur la ressource, alors la valeur unitaire du stock de ressource est plus grande que la rente courante. Si la rente de la ressource est considérée comme la contribution de la ressource au revenu national, le stock peut être évalué au niveau de la rente courante, mais alors l’épuisement est moins que la rente de la ressource.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.103 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyFrench-language works237,207