MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105977205 · doi:10.5751/es-16445-300429

Deforestation and economic growth in the Amazon region: investigating with a transposed environmental Kuznets curve

2025· article· en· W7105977205 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)Kuznets curveAmazon rainforestOutlierResource (disambiguation)LoggingNatural resourceLand usePanel data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the relationship between deforestation and economic performance in the Brazilian Legal Amazon, where resource extraction is linked to short-term economic gains, primarily through logging and ranching. The study proposes a transformed interpretation of the environmental Kuznets curve to illustrate a critical pattern. Whereas municipalities with lower levels of deforestation are associated with higher gross domestic products, beyond a certain threshold, areas experiencing greater forest loss are linked to reduced economic output. The analysis employs propensity score weighting on the complete dataset and linear regression models on a trimmed dataset, focusing on municipalities with active deforestation and excluding outliers to ensure robust results. The findings support the transformed hypothesis, indicating a nonlinear relationship between deforestation intensity and economic performance. These results highlight the importance of development strategies that integrate environmental conservation with economic benefits in regions facing land use pressures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.174
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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and SocietySame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207