MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293083166 · doi:10.5539/eer.v12n2p1

The Driving Forces of Energy-Related CO2 Emissions in the United States: A Decomposition Analysis

2022· article· en· W4293083166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas R. Sadler, Schuyler B. Bucher, Dikssha Sehgal

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Environment Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivisia indexEnergy intensityPer capitaFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceEnergy consumptionPopulationNatural resource economicsCarbon dioxideEmission intensityAgricultural economicsEnvironmental protectionEconomicsChemistryDemographyEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) approach to decomposition analysis to identify the factors that influence changes in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States.  The LMDI approach decomposes CO2 emissions into specific determinants.  The data set includes the 50 states plus the District of Columbia from 1998 – 2018.  The five factors that influence the change in CO2 emissions include the emissions per unit of fossil fuel consumption, share of fossil fuels in total energy consumption, energy intensity, GDP per capita, and population.  The results indicate that, during the 20-year period, CO2 emissions declined in 36 states plus the District of Columbia.  The reduction in energy intensity served as the most important factor in the change of CO2 emissions, offsetting 63 percent of the effects of per capita GDP and population.  From the perspective of climate change, the importance of a change in energy intensity demonstrates the effectiveness of a decrease in primary energy consumption per unit of GDP.   

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 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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and Environment ResearchSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207