Balancing contributions and rewards: a DEA approach for fair carbon emission abatement allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fairness is imperative in implementing carbon emission abatement (CEA) allocation schemes. This study introduces a new data envelopment analysis (DEA) methodology for the fair distribution of CEA among decision-making units (DMUs), taking into account their individual fairness. First, we establish a model to determine the maximum CEA potential for each DMU. Subsequently, an environmental efficiency evaluation model is presented to estimate a DMU’s maximum potential desirable output increment (referred to as individual reward) based on its CEA level (defined as individual contribution). The individual fairness index is then defined as the ratio of individual reward to individual contribution. A convergence of individual fairness indexes among DMUs indicates higher perceived fairness in the CEA allocation. To promote fairness, we propose a centralized CEA allocation model that maximizes the minimum individual fairness index among DMUs, aiming to minimize disparities. Our contribution lies in formulating the concept of individual fairness within the DEA-based CEA allocation paradigm and introducing an approach to generate a CEA allocation result that embodies fairness. Lastly, the proposed approach is applied to a case study involving 38 OECD countries, demonstrating its superiority in achieving equitable CEA allocation results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".