MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095947569 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n10p35

Energy Efficiency Estimation Based on Bayesian Method and Industrial Economic Transition: Taking Shandong as an Example

2015· article· en· W2095947569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yingying Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEfficient energy useEstimationSecondary sector of the economyStochastic frontier analysisEconomicsEconometricsTobit modelPanel dataIndustrial organizationEconomyMicroeconomicsEngineeringProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studied the total factor energy efficiency of industrial sector’s in Shandong. First, theoretical models of stochastic frontier approach on energy efficiency were structured, and then the referred parameters were estimated by using panel data of thirty-seven industries in Shandong from 2006 to 2013 and Bayesian estimation method. Finally Tobit model was applied to empirically study the influencing factors on energy efficiency of industrial sector’s. The study indicates that: (1) The input of capital and energy is notably positively correlative to output, while the input of labor quantity is negatively correlative to output. This means labor redundancy exist in industrial sectors. (2) Chemical industry, machinery industry, equipment manufacturing industry and food processing industry which have high energy efficiency should be further developed, especially marine chemical industry and marine biological medicine should be focused on to realize traditional industry upgrading. (3) Enterprise scale, international trade, the level of foreign investment and technology progress are notably positively relative to energy efficiency, while the proportion of state-owned economy have negative impact on energy efficiency. Therefore, it is necessary for further improvement in industrial energy efficiency in Shandong to decrease the proportion of stated-owned, encourage private capital entrance, extend opening up, and speed up the technical innovation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207