MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312184529 · doi:10.1007/s10098-022-02445-4

Marginal abatement costs for GHG emissions in Canada: a shadow cost approach

2022· article· en· W4312184529 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClean Technologies and Environmental Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasMarginal abatement costShadow priceNatural resource economicsEconomicsShadow (psychology)EstimationProduction (economics)Marginal costTotal costFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsEngineeringMicroeconomicsMathematicsWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study approximates the marginal abatement costs (MACs) of reducing GHG emissions in Canada using the shadow cost approach. Utilizing industry level data, we are the first to offer Canadian estimates based on a Hyperbolic Output Distance Function (HODF) and the stochastic frontier estimation. Accounting for GHG emissions caused by energy consumption, we obtain an average shadow MAC of $130/t across 30 industries. In the GHG-intensive industries such as the electric utilities and non-conventional oil extraction, MACs are lower than the CO 2 levy of $50/t imposed by the federal government. Since these low-MACs sectors account for about 98 per cent of total GHG emissions and 94 per cent of total energy use in industries studied, the envisaged $50/t carbon levy could notionally result in a significant GHG abatement in Canada. Graphical abstract

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.173 · 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