MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409234407 · doi:10.46991/bysu.g/2024.15.2.067

GREEN INVESTMENTS AND ITS INFLUENCE ON GREEN GROWTH IN RA: INTEGRATING ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH SUSTAINABILITY

2025· article· en· W4409234407 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liana Karapetyan, Ani Khalatyan

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Yerevan University G Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreen growthSustainabilityEconomicsNatural resource economicsEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceSustainable developmentEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this research is to explore the macroeconomic implications of green investment in the transformation to a green economy, while defining main sectoral priorities for investment allocation and underlining the short- and long-term macroeconomic effects of the “green” investment on the basis of which we can build possible scenarios for green transformation in the Republic of Armenia. For this purpose, we have examined the features of the new taxonomy of investments proposed in the “LowGrow SFC” model which was developed based on the Canadian economy. We propose to classify green investments in Armenia: “productive” or “non-productive”, “additional” and “non-additional”. Within the framework of the above-mentioned logic of presenting investments according to their macroeconomic impacts, it has been highlighted the main directions of the RA economy that can contribute to the growth of the green economy. In the it is suggested two possible Scenarios for Armenia’s green transformation, each of which takes into account different levels of investment, policy actions, and technological deployment. Which scenario is most effective for Armenia depends on the ability of the Armenian economy to attract green investments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Yerevan University G EconomicsSame topicSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyFrench-language works237,207