MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248372519 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v22i11.3731

Coal Consumption Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in China and Australia: Evidence From ARDL Model

2020· article· en· W4248372519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emrah Beşe, H. Swint Friday, Cihan Özden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKuznets curveDistributed lagGross domestic productEconomicsCoalChinaPer capitaEnergy consumptionConsumption (sociology)EconometricsMacroeconomicsNatural resource economicsGeographyEngineeringPopulationDemographyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, coal consumption (CS) for EKC is analyzed for two countries which are China and Australia by ARDL model (Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model). China and Australia are among the countries which are heavily dependent on coal for energy demands. China is the current leader in the world for coal consumption. In this study, we aim to analyze the effect of economic growth on CS for China and Australia. The importance of the study is that it is the first study for time series studies in the literature of single country studies that analyze CS EKC. Analysis of CS EKC is important since the world is still heavily depended on coal for energy demands. CS EKC is verified for Australia between GDP (gross domestic product per capita), CS and square of GDP (GP) for the period between 1980 and 2016. CS EKC is verified for China between GDP, CS, GP and energy consumption (ENEC) for the period between 1980 and 2014.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207