MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382337691 · doi:10.1002/cli2.52

What drives greenhouse gas emissions? An international scoping review of academic studies in 2010–2019

2023· article· en· W4382337691 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacob McCurdy, Ekaterina Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Resilience and Sustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsGreenhouse gasPer capitaGross domestic productClimate changeRenewable energyNatural resource economicsConsumption (sociology)EconomicsPopulationAgricultural economicsEconomic growthEngineeringEnvironmental healthSocial scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have increased globally 10% in the last decade, but there is a large variation in emissions trajectories by country. Understanding the main drivers of recent changes in GHG emissions is important to guide effective climate action. Using a narrative scoping review of academic literature, we access 648 abstracts and review 30 studies to identify statistically significant independent variables that were associated with GHG emissions nationally and multinationally (i.e., in country groupings) during or overlapping the period 2010–2019. We describe the findings in terms of potential reasons for the positive or negative associations, outline the strength of associations relative to other variables within the same study, and compare the associations to findings in other studies. We find that population, energy consumption, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita are the most common independent variables associated with increases in GHG emissions, whereas the square of GDP per capita and renewable energy production are associated with GHG reductions. We assign GHG drivers to seven categories: economic, energy, demographic, technology innovation, transportation, policy, and others. We conclude by discussing implications for future research and climate policy.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate Resilience and SustainabilitySame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207