MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327701951 · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/acc56c

Evaluation and optimization of ecological compensation fairness in prefecture-level cities of Anhui province

2023· article· en· W4327701951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sufeng Wang, Shourong Li, Jianling Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSpillover effectCompensation (psychology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Gini coefficientEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcologyGranger causalityRange (aeronautics)EconometricsEconomicsInequalityMathematicsBiologyEconomic inequality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Scientific evaluation and continuous optimization of the fairness of ecological compensation are conducive to improving the effect of air pollution control. However, relevant research in this field is in its infancy. Based on the data on urban-scale PM 2.5 concentration and ecological compensation from the third quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2020, this study takes 16 prefecture-level cities in Anhui Province as the research area and uses the Granger causality test to determine the PM 2.5 overflow paths of each city. Moreover, using 2020 as an example, the PM 2.5 spillover effect of each city is calculated, and the haze Gini coefficient of Anhui Province is obtained. According to the empirical results, the ecological compensation policy for PM 2.5 control in Anhui Province is in a relatively equal fairness range (0.295). On this basis, combined with the scatter diagram of ecological compensation and spillover effect, it is suggested to reduce the ecological compensation of five cities, including Maanshan and Xuancheng, while the ecological compensation of the remaining 11 cities should be increased. Two feasible optimization schemes, i.e., annual adjustment and regular adjustment, are proposed for environmental regulators to choose.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research CommunicationsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207