MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Malleable are the Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensities of the G7 Nations?

2007· article· en· W2084658837 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Bataille, Nic Rivers, Paulus Mau, Chris Joseph, Jianjun Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Energy Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasContext (archaeology)Fossil fuelNatural resource economicsElectricityRelevance (law)Climate changeEmission intensityProduction (economics)EconomicsClimate policyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental economicsGeographyMacroeconomicsPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do countries’ greenhouse gas (GHG) intensities differ? How much of a country’s GHG intensity is set by inflexible national circumstances, and how much may be altered by policy? These questions are common in climate change policy discourse and may influence emission reduction allocations. Despite the policy relevance of the discussion, little quantitative analysis has been done. In this paper we address these questions in the context of the G7 by applying a pair of simple quantitative methodologies: decomposition analysis and allocation of fossil fuel production emissions to end-users instead of producers. According to our analysis and available data, climate and geographic size - both inflexible national characteristics - can have a significant effect on a country’s GHG intensity. A country’s methods for producing electricity and net trade in fossil fuels are also significant, while industrial structure has little effect at the available level of data disaggregation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Energy JournalSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207