MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308517728 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15110518

GHG Emissions and Economic Growth in the European Union, Norway, and Iceland: A Validated Time-Series Approach Based on a Small Number of Observations

2022· article· en· W4308517728 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sergej Gričar, Štefan Bojnec, Tea Baldigara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEuropean unionEconomicsAutocorrelationInflation (cosmology)Autoregressive modelUnit rootEconometricsGross domestic productVector autoregressionUnit root testMacroeconomicsInternational economicsStatisticsCointegrationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to ensure methodological conformance and to test the validity of its empirical application. To do so, the study analysed differentiation of the development patterns of four time-series variables. The relationships between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, employment, inflation, and gross domestic product (GDP) at constant prices were analysed, comparing the European Union (EU-27) and two European Free Trade Association countries. The study period covers twelve years of monthly and quarterly data from the beginning of 2010 to mid-2021, where the highest frequency of data was 138 observations. The methodology used included unit root testing and the vector autoregressive model (VAR). The study’s main results show that GDP at constant prices significantly affected GHG emissions in the EU-27 countries. Meanwhile, the lag between inflation and employment did not have a considerable impact. This finding shows that inflation was not a stable variable and had a strong autocorrelation. Variable employment did not follow a normal distribution. It was necessary for this research to adopt a suitable model for the technical procedure.

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)0.002
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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207