MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727711633 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n7p228

The Regional Inequity of CO2 Emissions per Capita in China

2017· article· en· W2727711633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ting Liu, Wenqing Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheil indexPer capitaEconomicsInequalityEnergy intensityChinaEmission intensityComputable general equilibriumEconometricsEnergy (signal processing)GeographyMacroeconomicsStatisticsMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper combines Theil index method with factor decomposition technique to analyze China eight regions’ inequality of CO2 emissions per capita, and discuss energy structure, energy intensity, industrial structure, and per capita output’s impacts on inequality. This research shows that: (1) The trend of China regional carbon inequality is in the opposite direction to the per capita CO2 emission level. Namely, as the per capita CO2 emission levels rise, regional carbon inequality decreases, and vice versa. (2) Per capita output factor reduces regional carbon inequality, whereas energy structure factor and energy intensity factor increase the inequality. (3) More developed areas can reduce the carbon inequality by improving the energy structure, whereas the divergence of energy intensity in less developed areas has increased to expand the carbon inequity. Thus, when designing CO2 emission reduction targets, policy makers should consider regional differences in economic development level and energy efficiency, and refer to the main influencing factors. At the same time, upgrading industrial structure and upgrading energy technologies should be combined to meet the targets of economic growth and CO2 emission reduction.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207