MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403486650 · doi:10.15353/rea.v16i3.5332

Cross-country distribution dynamics of carbon emissions and intensity: Before and after the global financial crisis

2024· article· en· W4403486650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yigang Wei, Michal Wojewodzki, Tsun Se Cheong, Xunpeng Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economic Analysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial crisisDistribution (mathematics)EconomicsIntensity (physics)Greenhouse gasDynamics (music)Financial systemMacroeconomicsPhysicsMathematicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study employs the distribution dynamics approach to uncover transition probabilities and the long-term evolution of relative per capita carbon emissions (REPC) and relative carbon intensity (REPGDP) across 204 countries. We split the period of analysis into pre-crisis (2000-2007), and post-crisis (2007-2016) and divided countries into four income groups. The results indicate the emergence of new convergence clubs post-crisis in both REPC and REPGDP. On the one hand, the majority (many) of the low- (high) income countries congregate to extremely low (above the global average) REPC levels in the long run. On the other hand, most of the upper-medium- (high) income economies cluster around REPGDP levels far above (below) the global average. Finally, using mobility probability plots, we identify above-average carbon emitters with the highest probabilities of diverging further above the global average in the coming years. The study delivers nascent evidence supporting the usefulness of the MPP display tool in clarifying the positions and responsibilities of specific countries in future agreements on climate change. The results support the argument for using both measures of carbon emissions as a suite of future multilateral climate negotiations and policies.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economic AnalysisSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207