MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does economic growth influence the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence for the United States–Mexico–Canada agreement

2025· article· en· W4409243455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Osvaldo Urbano Becerril Torres, Citlalli A. Becerril-Tinoco, Justyna Wieloch, Gabriela Munguía Vázquez

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics & Sociology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideReduction (mathematics)Natural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to measure the impact of goods and services production on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The research is supported by a theoretical and methodological framework that incorporates a production function with two outputs. This approach makes it possible to demonstrate that emissions tend to reduce with economic growth. The research uses panel data for the North American region. The findings reveal significant differences across countries: the U.S. and Canada demonstrate a stronger emissions-reduction effect compared to Mexico. The findings reveal that in the thirty years since the United States–Mexico–Canada (USMCA) agreement was signed, CO2 emissions have dropped while the economy of the region has grown. The findings emphasize the need for increased coordination among national governments in executing public policies on reducing CO2 emissions, the main gas that causes the greenhouse effect, to mitigate environmental degradation. These results are consistent with the studies conducted for European countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomics & SociologySame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207