MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762162155 · doi:10.3390/en10101578

The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Total Factor Energy Efficiency: A Cross-Region Analysis in China

2017· article· en· W2762162155 on OpenAlexaff
Jianting Lin, Changxin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersTsinghua UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTobit modelNatural resource economicsEconomicsSustainable developmentForeign direct investmentEfficient energy useEnergy consumptionEndowmentFactor endowmentResource (disambiguation)Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental economicsChinaEconometricsInternational tradeComparative advantageGeographyEcologyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental regulations are the key measure by which governments achieve sustainable environmental and economic development. This study aimed to determine the direct and indirect impacts of environmental regulations on total factor energy efficiency of regions in China. Since regions have different levels of economic development and resource endowment, we used the slacks-based measure (SBM)-undesirable model to calculate total factor energy efficiency considering regional technology heterogeneity and examined the regional impacts of environmental regulation on this efficiency using the Tobit regression model. A positive direct impact was generated in the eastern region of China by the forced mechanism, which forced enterprises to reduce fossil fuel energy demand and increase clean energy consumption; whereas a negative direct impact was generated in the middle and western regions owing to the green paradox, which is the observation that expected stringent environmental regulation prompts energy owners to accelerate resource extraction. Moreover, indirect impacts through technological progress and foreign direct investment were taken into account in the model, and the results show that the indirect impacts vary across regions. A logical response to these findings would be to develop different policies for different regions.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207