Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2008–2009 financial crisis, often referred to as the Great Recession, presented one of the greatest challenges to economies since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Before the financial crisis, and in response to the Kyoto Protocol, many countries were making great strides in increasing energy efficiency, reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emission intensity and reducing their emissions of CO2. During the financial crisis, CO2 emissions declined in response to a decrease in economic activity. The focus of this research is to study how energy related CO2 emissions and their driving factors after the financial crisis compare to the period before the financial crisis. The logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) method is used to decompose changes in country level CO2 emissions into contributing factors representing carbon intensity, energy intensity, economic activity, and population. The analysis is conducted for a group of 19 major countries (G19) which form the core of the G20. For the G19, as a group, the increase in CO2 emissions post-financial crisis was less than the increase in CO2 emissions pre-financial crisis. China is the only BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) country to record changes in CO2 emissions, carbon intensity and energy intensity in the post-financial crisis period that were lower than their respective values in the pre-financial crisis period. Compared to the pre-financial crisis period, Germany, France, and Italy also recorded lower CO2 emissions, carbon intensity and energy intensity in the post-financial crisis period. Germany and Great Britain are the only two countries to record negative changes in CO2 emissions over both periods. Continued improvements in reducing CO2 emissions, carbon intensity and energy intensity are hard to come by, as only four out of nineteen countries were able to achieve this. Most countries are experiencing weak decoupling between CO2 emissions and GDP. Germany and France are the two countries that stand out as leaders among the G19.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".