MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do strong oligopolies reverse Green Paradox effects?

2023· article· en· W4382933085 on OpenAlex
Gerard van der Meijden, Hassan Benchekroun, Frederick van der Ploeg, Cees Withagen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Political Economy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsOligopolyEconomicsMonopolyMicroeconomicsRenewable energyFossil fuelMarket powerPerfect competitionNatural resource economicsCournot competitionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a competitive market renewable energy subsidies or postponement of carbon pricing tend to boost emissions and global warming in the short run. This so-called Green Paradox effect may be reversed if fossil-fuel firms operate under an oligopoly and the number of members is low enough. A reversal of the Green Paradox always occurs under a fossil fuel monopoly. If the extraction costs of fossil fuel depend on the aggregate remaining stock of reserves, Green Paradox effects vanish if the number of oligopolists becomes infinitely large. For an intermediate number of members, a Green Paradox occurs. The strength of the Green Paradox effect depends non-monotonically on the number of oligopolists. We also show that a Green Paradox is more likely for higher slopes of the demand curve, higher sensitivities of unit extraction costs with respect to remaining reserves, and lower interest rates.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.008

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.183 · 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