MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902146852 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n6p15

Carbon Footprint Based on Household Consumption: Case Study on Cocoa Farmer’s Household in Polewali Mandar

2018· article· en· W2902146852 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhamad Rifa’i, Nunung Nuryartono, Mohammad Iqbal Irfany

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Pertanian BogorUniversitas HasanuddinUniversity of SydneyInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCarbon footprintConsumption (sociology)SustainabilityEconomicsAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsFootprintGreenhouse gasGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable development has become an interesting issue in the 21st century. The main pillar of sustainable development is the economic sustainability, social, and environmental. Since the industrial revolution, there is a trade-off between economic growth and environment. The main environmental problem nowadays is a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This study aims to analyze the determinant of carbon footprint formation through household consumption approach, with the case of cacao farmers in Polewali Mandar. This study employed OLS and quantile regression as the method. A combined GTAP-E data, I-O, and the calculation of carbon footprint survey used in this study. The result shows that fuel light consumption and transportation are the most carbon footprint formers. Furthermore, household income determines the most carbon footprint. The higher household income, the higher carbon footprint produced. The control variables that influence the carbon footprint are marriage status, poverty level and household size.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207