MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410831572 · doi:10.54517/ssd3321

Revisiting the pollution-haven vs. porter hypotheses: Empirical evidence from Nigeria

2025· article· en· W4410831572 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel T. Ideba, Anthony Orji, Onyinye I. Anthony‐Orji, Jonathan E. Ogbuabor, Chukwuebuka Jude Chiobi, Chineze Hilda Nevo, Jude O. Ikubor

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Social Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHavenEmpirical evidenceSafe havenPollutionEconomicsPhilosophyEpistemologyMathematicsInternational economicsBiologyEcologyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1970s, the role of trade liberalization and foreign direct investment in promoting environmental sustainability has been a hot topic in academics. While some research supports the Porter hypothesis, others support the pollution-haven hypothesis. Accordingly, this study aims to determine whether the pollution haven hypothesis holds by examining how trade openness and foreign direct investment affect Nigeria’s environmental sustainability for the period of 1981 to 2021. By deploying the dynamic ordinary least square (DOLS) estimation technique, the study outcomes indicate that trade openness and foreign direct investment have a negative and significant long-term effect on Nigeria’s greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the results of this study support the Potter hypothesis, which holds that emerging nations become centers of advanced and cleaner technology as a result of trade liberalization and foreign direct investment. As a result, the study suggests that the Nigerian government should support the creation of compressed natural gas (CNG) stations and the switch to CNG-powered vehicles. The Nigerian government can also promote investment in the green energy industry by offering tax holidays and other benefits to companies in this field. Furthermore, there should be a widespread public education campaign on the threat posed by global warming and the necessity of planting trees to mitigate the effects of climate change and discourage tree-cutting.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Social DevelopmentSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207