Ecological Economics and Dynamic Games: A Systematic Literature Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological and environmental economics are inherently dynamic systems requiring dynamic optimization tools. Understanding the interplay between environmental economics, ecological economics, and dynamic games is crucial. This paper presents a systematic literature review on ecological and environmental economics modeled with dynamic games. To be more specific, this systematic literature review analyzes a dataset of 88 peer-reviewed articles from international journals. This study identifies clusters related to resource management, taxation, and policy. It also reveals niche and motor research themes, such as policy, biological invasions, pollution, taxation, abatement, and efficiency, paving the way for future research avenues. By comprehensively examining the literature, this review provides insights into current and future challenges faced by companies, consumers, regulators, and society. It contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between ecological and environmental dynamics and the field of dynamic games in economics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it