MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400002647 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.190315

Forecasting CO2 Emissions in Malaysia Through ARIMA Modelling: Implications for Environmental Policy

2024· article· en· W4400002647 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yogesswary Segar, Noor Haslina Mohamad Akhir, Nur Azura Sanusi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageEnvironmental scienceEconometricsEngineeringEnvironmental economicsOperations researchEconomicsTime seriesStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon dioxide (CO2), a prominent constituent of greenhouse gases, has a vital impact on environmental pollution and the occurrence of global warming.Malaysia is categorised as the primary contributor to CO2 emissions among the ASEAN countries.Malaysia's total CO2 emissions had a significant increase, surging by a factor of nine, from 28 Mt in 1980 to 262.2 Mt in 2020.This indicates analysing the significance of CO2 emissions is an urgent concern in Malaysia.Therefore, the objective of this study is to forecasts the magnitude of CO2 emissions that will be discharged in Malaysia during a span of ten years, specifically from 2021 to 2030.This study utilises quantitative modelling, namely auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) analysis, to assess the yearly time series data of CO2 emissions in Malaysia spanning from 1970 to 2020.The findings reveal that Malaysia's CO2 emissions are expected to continue rising in the next ten years, albeit with a gradual decline.This finding contributes to the body of knowledge and provides Malaysian policymakers with an opportunity to strengthen their current economic and environmental policies.This, in turn, could help create a safer environment and mitigate the negative impacts of CO2 emissions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207