MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969044550 · doi:10.1177/0958305x19867082

CO <sub>2</sub> emissions converge in China and G7 countries? Further evidence from Fourier quantile unit root test

2019· article· en· W2969044550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cuihong Ye, Yiguo Chen, Roula Inglesi‐Lotz, Tsangyao Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Environment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantileUnit rootUnit root testChinaPer capitaEconomicsQuantile regressionConvergence (economics)Unit (ring theory)Empirical evidenceEmpirical researchEconometricsAgricultural economicsEnvironmental scienceGeographyEconomic growthMathematicsStatisticsCointegrationDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

G7 countries and China are considered not only the biggest energy producers globally but also the largest CO 2 emission groups of countries among the world. In this study, we apply the Fourier quantile unit root test to investigate whether CO 2 emissions converge in China and G7 countries using per capita CO 2 emissions data over 1950–2013. While traditional unit root test results indicate that per capita CO 2 emissions do not converge among these G7 countries and China, empirical results from the Fourier quantile unit root test point out that the CO 2 emissions did converge in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Although the results of this study do not find strong CO 2 emission convergence in the other five countries (i.e., Canada, France, Japan, the United States, and China), the CO 2 emissions did converge in certain quantiles for these five countries. Our empirical results have important policy implications for the governments of G7 countries and China to implement the effective energy policy to reduce the CO 2 emissions.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & EnvironmentSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207