MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3125671802

Emission Taxes and Standards in a General Equilibrium with Entry and Exit

2015· article· en· W3125671802 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhe Li, Jianfei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsGeneral equilibrium theoryWelfareProductivityMarket powerDispersion (optics)Applied general equilibriumNatural resource economicsEconometricsMicroeconomicsMacroeconomicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies and compares the welfare effects of emission taxes and emission standards in a general equilibrium model with two sectors in which plants can freely enter and exit. In one of the sectors plants differ in their productivity, produce differentiated goods, and generate emissions that can be reduced using an abatement technology. An emission reduction policy causes resource reallocation among plants and across sectors in two ways: a static way due to the dispersion of productivity and a dynamic way due to entry and exit. The model shows that the static distributional effect favors the emission tax, while the dynamic distributional effect favors the emission standard. Calibrated to Canadian data, the model shows that the dynamic effect dominates the static one and hence the emission standard dominates the emission tax in terms of welfare. This is the case not only in the baseline model, but also in a model with a large variation of parameter values for productivity dispersion, market power, and abatement efficiency.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→