MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378627982 · doi:10.5539/eer.v13n1p27

Identification of Key Production Factors in China's Environmental Protection Industry Based on Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4378627982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jia-Kai Li, Yan Wang, Weihua Tian, Xuehua Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Environment Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProduction (economics)ChinaEnvironmental pollutionControl (management)Government (linguistics)Resource (disambiguation)Natural resource economicsIndustrial organizationEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing from the micro level of the basic unit of environmental protection industry -- enterprise, this paper takes   relevant information of more than 8000 key enterprises in China's environmental protection industry from 2018 to 2020 as the big data training samples, and uses BP neural network method to identify the key production factors that have great impact on the output of the whole China's environmental protection industry and its main subdivisions. The results show that China's environmental protection industry is still in the growing stage in the current stage, with significant capital pulling, technological innovation driving, and management innovation also plays an important role. There are differences in the performance of water, air and solid waste in the environmental protection industry. In detail, R&D expenses from the government plays the most important role in water pollution prevention and control industry. Technology innovation plays the most important role in air pollution prevention and control industry. And staff play the most important role in solid waste treatment and resource recycling industry.

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 score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and Environment ResearchSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207