MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W329826775 · doi:10.1086/684509

Credit Constraints, Technology Upgrading, and the Environment

2016· article· en· W329826775 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)EconometricsEconomicsPollutionScale (ratio)MicroeconomicsIndustrial organizationMonetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a tractable general equilibrium model to analyze the effect of credit constraints on production-generated pollution emissions. The model demonstrates that reducing credit constraints increases the scale of production (scale effect) and increases the number of firms taking up production (market-size effect), while it also reduces emissions per unit of output (technique effect) and increases the share of firms investing in the technology upgrade (upgrading-composition effect). Because the former and latter effects are plausibly confounding in nature, the net effect of credit constraints on pollution emissions is an empirical question. This paper demonstrates, using variation in the timing of credit market reforms, that reducing credit constraints significantly improves air pollution. The results are robust using various approaches, including difference in differences (DID) with a rich set of controls, and an alternative DID approach, wherein the time series data are collapsed around credit reforms into a pre- and post-period.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.149 · 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