MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908091614 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v11n2p41

Population Aging Can Aggravate Air Pollution: Evidence from China

2018· article· en· W2908091614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulation ageingChinaPopulationAir pollutionConsumption (sociology)Air quality indexPollutionNatural resource economicsEnergy consumptionDevelopment economicsDemographic economicsGeographyEnvironmental healthEconomicsEngineeringMedicineMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population, resources and environment have always attracted much attention from the society. Nowadays, pollution and population aging are urgent problems to be solved in China, and many scholars have found a strong correlation between pollution and aging. This paper constructs a KAYA model with aging variables, making an empirical analysis of the relationship between population aging and air pollution based on the panel data of 82 cities in China from 2011 to 2016. We found that population aging has a significant and positive impact on air pollution. 1% change of the population aging will lead to a 0.203% change in AQI. The deepening of China’s aging level will lead to ineffective improvement of air quality and even lead to more serious air pollution. Then we make the further analysis of the impact mechanism of population aging on air quality, the results show that population aging could have a positive impact on air pollution by improving labor productivity, promoting technological innovation, increasing fossil energy consumption and the household consumption, and changing the structure of household consumption. At last, in order to improve the air pollution under the background of population aging, we put forward the policy recommendations according to the conclusion of this paper.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→