MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376273246 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16050269

Asymmetric Effects of Financial Development on CO2 Emissions in Bangladesh

2023· article· en· W4376273246 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anupam Das, Leanora Brown, Adian McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern UniversityMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCointegrationPer capitaEconomicsGross domestic productConsumption (sociology)Energy consumptionNatural resource economicsMonetary economicsMacroeconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depending on how it functions and is organized, the financial system can have a negative, positive, or zero impact on the environment. For Bangladesh, the empirical relationship between financial development and the environment, measured in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita, is analysed over the period 1980 to 2020. This is the first such analysis for this country. We perform this within a non-linear bound testing framework while controlling for changes in energy consumption, gross domestic product, and trade volume. There are two key findings. One, we find that the relationship between CO2 emissions per capita and financial development is cointegrating, with the direction of cointegration running from financial development to CO2 emissions. Two, we find that positive and negative changes in financial development have asymmetric impacts on CO2 emissions in the long and short run. The implications of these findings are discussed regarding their attendant environmental policy implications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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