MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391323028 · doi:10.1080/00036846.2024.2303407

Pro-environment consumer behaviour and electric vehicle adoptions: a comparative regional meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4391323028 on OpenAlexafffund
Arshia Khalid, Amar Anwar

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersCape Breton University
KeywordsEconomicsMeta-analysisEconometricsMacroeconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have explored the relationship between the environment and the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs); however, a consensus has not been reached among empirical findings. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive meta-regression analysis by synthesizing and scrutinizing data from existing literature to identify potential sources of heterogeneity among effect sizes in individual studies. To achieve this goal, we collected 429 estimates from 65 previously published studies spanning the period from 1998 to 2021. We investigate the connection between pro-environmental consumer behaviour and EV adoption at the aggregate level and compare this relationship across three distinct regions: North America, Western Europe, and emerging markets. Our research employs advanced empirical techniques, including Bayesian model averaging, frequentist model averaging, and weighted average least squares. The outcome of our analysis reveals a positive, albeit relatively weak synthesized effect of environmental factors on EV adoption. Notably, our meta-analysis findings indicate that the impact of environmental concerns on EV adoption varies significantly depending on the specific type of EV being considered. Consumers prefer versatile hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles due to fuel flexibility, especially in areas where battery electric vehicle charging infrastructure is scarce.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied EconomicsSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207