The Impact of Technological Progress in the Energy Sector on Carbon Emissions: An Empirical Analysis from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the relationship between technological progress in the energy sector and carbon emissions based on the Environment Kuznets Curve (EKC) and data from China during the period of 1995-2012. Our study confirms that the situation in China conforms to the EKC hypothesis and presents the inverted U-curve relationship between per capita income and carbon emissions. Furthermore, the inflection point will be reached in at least five years. Then, we use research and development (R & D) investment in the energy industry as the quantitative indicator of its technological progress to test its impact on carbon emissions. Our results show that technological progress in the energy sector contributes to a reduction in carbon emissions with hysteresis. Furthermore, our results show that energy efficiency improvements are also helpful in reducing carbon emissions. However, climate policy and change in industrial structure increase carbon emissions to some extent. Our conclusion demonstrates that currently, China is not achieving economic growth and pollution reduction simultaneously. To further achieve the goal of carbon reduction, the government should increase investment in the energy industry research and improve energy efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".