RETRACTED: Financial Consideration of Energy and Environmental Nexus with Energy Poverty: Promoting Financial Development in G7 Economies
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy and environmental concepts have been extensively studied in the past. However, these studies often lacked integrated analysis of energy, monetary, public, and ecological aspects to assess energy and environmental issues. This article provides analyzation of the G7 nations’ qualitative, social, cultural, and health achievement in the energy poverty indexes. These include the energy economics and climate change of energy poverty, by using DEA like a composite indicator. The G7 countries’ combined energy consumption is equal to 34% of the world’s total, whereas the GDP is 50% of the global total. As a result, this article develops a comprehensive series of energy, financial, societal, and environmental indicators that are up to date. Such indicators are utilized to assess energy financial, societal, and EPI using a mathematical composite indicator. Canada has the greatest EPII score, indicating that it can deal better than the other G7 countries with energy independence, productivity expansion, and social impact, and France’s and Italy’s the second tier. While Japan has a 0.50 EPI grade and the United States will have the lowest, the G7 countries are growing faster. Finally, we propose a policy framework for enhancing the research area. The energy, societal, and EPI were created by combining these elements. In terms of energy independence, economic growth, and sustainability practices, Canada beats the other G7 countries according to the data. France and Italy are in the 2nd and 3rd places, respectively. Despite having a higher level of economic development than the G7 countries, Japan has a 0.50 Environmental Performance Index rating, whereas the United States has a minimum average Environmental Performance Index rating. Finally, in order to improve the study’s subject, we propose a policy framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".