MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408764971 · doi:10.55763/ippr.2025.06.01.002

Compensating for the Fiscal Loss in India’s Energy Transition

2025· article· en· W4408764971 on OpenAlexaff
Laveesh Bhandari, Rajat Verma, Dhruva Teja Nandipati

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Public Policy Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for Exercise Physiology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransition (genetics)Energy (signal processing)EconomicsKeynesian economicsDevelopment economicsPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India has committed to ambitious targets, aiming to achieve net-zero emissions by 2070; however, this transition away from fossil fuels presents significant fiscal and institutional challenges, that warrant careful examination. This study primarily explores the dynamics of tax revenues and the fiscal implications of India's transition. As fossil fuel consumption declines over time, government revenues generated from fossil fuels are also expected to decrease relative to GDP. The research delves into the institutional challenges related to enhancing existing tax systems, and considers the viability of implementing a carbon tax as an alternative revenue source to replace fossil fuel taxes. The study assesses various tax revenue options, evaluating their effectiveness in revenue generation, long-term sustainability required institutional changes, and the preservation of state autonomy. Allocating revenue between the union and individual states can be an intricate task. The study highlights the potential of carbon taxes as a valuable medium-term solution to address revenue loss. However, it also underscores the challenges associated with their implementation, including institutional barriers and political-economic complexities, particularly within India's fiscal-federal structure. Active engagement from institutions like the Finance Commission and the GST Council is emphasised, recognising their critical roles in managing this transition and mitigating its impact on state-level fiscal autonomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Public Policy ReviewSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207