MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886115924 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079564

Spatiotemporal Changes of China's Carbon Emissions

2018· article· en· W2886115924 on OpenAlexafffund
Bofeng Cai, Xiuquan Wang, Guohe Huang, Wang Jinnan, Dong Cao, Brian W. Baetz, Lei Liu, Hua Zhang, Adam Fenech, Zhu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersFoundation for Innovative Research Team of Jimei UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChinaGreenhouse gasUrbanizationCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceClimate changeRelaxation (psychology)Horizontal resolutionClimatologyGeographyMeteorologyGeologyMaterials scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spatiotemporal changes in China's carbon emissions during the 11th and 12th Five‐Year Plan periods are quantified for the first time through a reconstructed nationwide high‐resolution gridded data set. The hot spots of carbon emissions in China have expanded by 28.5% (toward the west) in the north and shrunk by 18.7% in the south; meanwhile, the emission densities in North and South China have increased by 15.7% and 49.9%, respectively. This suggests a clear transition to a more intensive economic growth model in South China as a result of the energy conservation and emission reduction policies, while the expanded carbon hot spots in North China are mainly dominated by the Grand Western Development Program. The results also show that China's carbon emissions exhibit a typical spatially intensive, high‐emission pattern, which has undergone a slight relaxation (up to 3%) from 2007 to 2012 due to a typical urbanization process.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207