Identifying the roles of energy and economic factors on environmental degradation in MINT economies: a hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, research communities have been studying the different determinants of environmental degradation or pollution using different contexts and methods. In this study, we identify several energy and economic factors, such as energy consumption (EC), gross domestic product (GDP), energy production (EP), urbanization (URB), and foreign direct investment (FDI) as the most effective factors of environmental degradation by obtaining several environmental researchers' opinions and using the hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In the later stage of the analysis, we use these variables as regressors of the ecological footprint (EF) as a proxy for environmental degradation. Since we find evidence of cross-sectional dependence among the members of the variables, we use second-generational panel tests. First, we test the stationarity of the variables using the cross-sectionally augmented IPS (CIPS) panel unit test. The results show that the regressors have different orders of integration. So, we employ the Durbin-Hausman panel cointegration test to test the existence of a long-run relationship between the variables. Having found a long-run relationship, we estimate the long-run coefficients using the common correlated effects mean group estimator, which reveals that energy consumption has an increasing effect on the EF in Indonesia and Turkey, while energy production has a negative impact in Mexico and Turkey. While GDP has an increasing effect in all countries, FDI has a similar effect in only Indonesia. Moreover, URB decreases the ecological footprint in Nigeria, while it increases in Turkey. Our approach to the evaluation of environmental degradation can be generalized to other regions as well as where there is a significant need to understand the roles of different drivers on environmental degradation or pollution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".