Publication record
Saved
Publication analysis
How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling
4 selected findings · 7 of 7 quotations matched
Source passages
7Returned quotations from the admitted text projection. Select a field citation to locate its referenced passage.
Quotation: matched
Proposed locator: page 1633, header and metadata
Nature Sustainability | Volume 7 | December 2024 | 1633–1641 1633 nature sustainability https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01466-9 Article How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling Andrej Woerner 1,2 , Taisuke Imai 2,3 , Davide D. Pace 1,2 & Klaus M. Schmidt 1,2,4
Proposed printed page: 1633
Quotation: matched · Referenced by selected finding
Proposed locator: page 1634, column 2, Results
We conducted an experiment with 1,100 participants who are repre- sentative of the German population. Participants were asked to make two purchase decisions about valuable but CO2-generating virtual products. In each decision, the participants decide whether to buy zero, one or two products. The first decision involved a low price per product, while the second decision had an additional carbon price of €3 (€50 per ton of CO2). Following these decisions, the participants voted on whether to implement the purchase decision either with or without the carbon price.
Proposed printed page: 1634
Quotation: matched · Referenced by selected finding
Proposed locator: page 1635, column 2, Voting behaviour
When revenues go to the general budget of the federal government, a minor- ity of participants votes for carbon pricing (47.3%). This is reflected in reported low trust in the government: 52.5% (21.5%) disagreed (agreed) with the statement “I have confidence in the German government to use taxpayers’ money wisely”. However, the majority approves the carbon price under the other revenue recycling schemes. In conditions Climate Projects and Redis- tribute Poor, 62.6% and 62.7% of the votes are in favour of the carbon price, respectively. This percentage increases to 68.8% in the Redistrib- ute All condition and further jumps to 73.1% in the Climate Premium condition. All of these schemes receive significantly more than 50% of the votes (two-sided test of proportions; P < 0.001). Interestingly, Redistribute All fares better than Redistribute Poor, because richer participants are significantly less likely to vote in favour of the latter (McNemar’s test; 54.5% versus 68.8%; z = 6.63; P < 0.001) while poorer participants support both schemes similarly (McNemar’s test; 70.6% versus 68.8%; z = 1.09; P = 0.275). The share of votes in favour of the Climate Premium is significantly higher than for any other scheme (McNemar’s tests; versus State Budget z = 14.84, versus Climate Projects z = 7.35, versus Redistribute Poor z = 7.55, versus Redistribute All z = 3.49; all P < 0.01 with Bonferroni correction).
Proposed printed page: 1635
Quotation: matched
Proposed locator: page 1636, column 2, Misperceptions
Beliefs about buying behaviour . The participants significantly underestimated the effect of the carbon price on buying behaviour. Figure 4 shows that, on average, participants believe that the carbon price reduces purchases by 0.17 units (s.d. = 0.41), significantly less than the actual drop of 0.47 units (two-sided paired t -test; t (1,099) = −13.56; 95% CI (−0.338, −0.252); P < 0.001), which is more than 2.5 times as large. This misperception is important because beliefs about the effectiveness of climate policy are a key driver of public support 20 .
Proposed printed page: 1636
Quotation: matched
Proposed locator: page 1636–1637, Expert predictions
Beliefs about voting behaviour . Figure 5 shows that participants strongly and significantly underestimate the support for carbon pric- ing, regardless of the revenue recycling scheme. Averaged over all conditions, they predict 42.7% instead of 62.9% of votes in favour of the carbon price. The underestimation is especially large in the State Budget (26.5 percentage points) and Climate Premium (23.2 percentage points) conditions.
Proposed printed page: 1636-1637
Quotation: matched · Referenced by selected finding
Proposed locator: page 1638, Methods
The experiment was carried out in June 2023 in collaboration with Bilendi, a market research company specializing in online surveys with proprietary panels in several European countries. There were 1,100 par- ticipants representative of the German population with respect to age (above 18), gender, income, education and region of residence (see Sup- plementary Table 1 for a summary of demographic characteristics).
Proposed printed page: 1638
Quotation: matched · Referenced by selected finding
Proposed locator: page 1637, column 1, lines 1-8
Averaged over all conditions, experts expect that 45.4% of votes are in favour, while the actual number is 62.9%. Importantly, while experts correctly predict the three carbon dividend schemes to be the most popular, they mistakenly believe Redistribute All and Redistribute Poor to get more support than the Climate Premium.
Proposed printed page: 1637
Economic context
1 / 4research estimate · proposed mapping
average units purchased per person
Reported expression: unresolved.
Comparison: 0.59 with the carbon price · Baseline: 1.06 without · Reference period: June 2023 · Intervention: an additional carbon price of €3 (€50 per ton of CO2)
Numeric text is present, but no reported expression is assigned. Inspect the source; no quantity was inferred from prose.
Original generated description
Reduction in Virtual Product Purchases Under Carbon Pricing
Introducing a carbon price of €50 per ton of CO2 (€3 per product) led to a significant drop in average units purchased from 1.06 to 0.59 per person (paired t(1,099) = 24.10, P < 0.001).
Structured-field presentation; field attribution and economic meaning are not independently validated.
- Baseline
- 1.06 withoutreported · proposedSource: e3
- Comparison
- 0.59 with the carbon pricereported · proposedSource: e3
- Estimator
- two-sided paired t-testreported · proposedSource: e3
- Uncertainty
- t(1,099) = 24.10; P < 0.001reported · proposed · source support incompleteSource: e3
15 unresolved fields
- Finding role
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Subject
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Denominator
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Estimand
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Specification
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Reported expression
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Unit
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Normalization
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Count role
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Observation unit
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Treatment period
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Valuation
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Adjustment
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Rate basis
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Dependencies and correspondence
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Consumption was measured over virtual products in an online survey experiment with €50/ton CO2 framing tied to real offset cancellation.
AI-generated interpretation. Matched quotations establish text locations; economic validity and publisher attribution remain unverified.
The saved source receipt reports a durable archive. An older generated limitation below says request-scoped. That historical text is preserved in the original download.
Source and processing receipt: 2 passed · 1 partial
Source, document identity and inspected coverage
- Supplied document
- R05.pdf
- Input
- Uploaded file
- Inspected surface
- application/pdf; 15 physical PDF pages
- Source bytes SHA-256
- d020cc08dc9dae911bbec705ecc99b46e5dbfb1e234e78340c8b7c6f434c9ee5
- Admitted text SHA-256
- 386ad538a6169a46273145eddf93f9a152914533099ddec6a7767c57e2a267d2
- Source retention
- Source bytes and inspected text are archived with immutable generations and hashes.
- Study
- How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recyclingreported · proposedSource: e1
- Authors
- Andrej Woerner, Taisuke Imai, Davide D. Pace & Klaus M. Schmidtreported · proposedSource: e1
- Publication time
- Published online: 21 November 2024reported · proposedSource: e1
- Publisher
- Springer Naturereported · proposedSource: e1
- Document kind
- Articlereported · proposedSource: e1
- Report
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Inspected edition
- Unresolvedunresolved · proposed
This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.
not inspected
- Selected findings are not an exhaustive inventory. Publisher authority and semantic mappings are not established by this analysis.
- Physical PDF page indices differ from printed page labels. Text order and table header/note association are not independently validated.
- The native PDF is supplied to Gemini. Figure, scan and layout interpretations without matched text anchors remain unverified.
APPLICATION SCHEMA: passed
Tool arguments match the versioned draft schema, field scopes and knowledge-state invariants.
SOURCE ANCHORS: passed
7 of 7 quotations uniquely match the admitted text projection. This checks location, not meaning.
FIELD SUPPORT: partial
3 populated finding fields lack matched literal/source support. Field attribution, table association and entailment are not assessed.
openucem.publication-record/0.3.0 · Gemini · gemini-3.8-flash
2026-11-01T06:25:22.119Z · 1 model request
- Selected findings are not an exhaustive inventory. Publisher authority and semantic mappings are not established by this analysis.
- Physical PDF page indices differ from printed page labels. Text order and table header/note association are not independently validated.
- The native PDF is supplied to Gemini. Figure, scan and layout interpretations without matched text anchors remain unverified.
- Study stakes in experimental settings are smaller than real-life carbon pricing policies, and virtual product decisions were framed around carbon offset purchases.
- Expert sample relies on voluntary survey participation (28% response rate) from academic economists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
- All assignments are proposed. Matching quotations and tokens do not certify economic meaning, causal claims, independent support or compatibility for calculation.
- Source bytes are request-scoped, not archived. Downloaded hashes and quotations do not guarantee future source recovery.
- Findings and repeated specifications from one publication are potentially dependent. No coefficient conversion, pooling or statistical inference was performed.
Inspect the structured record
{
"profile": "openucem.publication-record/0.3.0",
"requestId": "1a34d3cb-8969-48f5-9b7d-047615e61650",
"status": "completed_partial",
"source": {
"inputKind": "upload",
"requestedUrl": null,
"finalUrl": null,
"filename": "R05.pdf",
"mediaType": "application/pdf",
"byteLength": 2541874,
"sourceBytesSha256": "d020cc08dc9dae911bbec705ecc99b46e5dbfb1e234e78340c8b7c6f434c9ee5",
"admittedTextSha256": "386ad538a6169a46273145eddf93f9a152914533099ddec6a7767c57e2a267d2",
"acquiredAt": "2026-11-01T06:25:03.023Z",
"retention": "durable_archive",
"publisherAuthority": {
"status": "unverified",
"reason": "Document attribution and source origin are not verified by a URL capture, upload, or model assignment. This source capture does not establish publisher authenticity or semantic conformance."
}
},
"document": {
"study": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"authors": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Andrej Woerner, Taisuke Imai, Davide D. Pace & Klaus M. Schmidt",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"publication_time": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Published online: 21 November 2024",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"publisher": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Springer Nature",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"document_kind": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Article",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"report": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"edition": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
}
},
"findings": [
{
"id": "f1",
"title": "Reduction in Virtual Product Purchases Under Carbon Pricing",
"kind": "research_estimate",
"summary": "Introducing a carbon price of €50 per ton of CO2 (€3 per product) led to a significant drop in average units purchased from 1.06 to 0.59 per person (paired t(1,099) = 24.10, P < 0.001).",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"fields": {
"outcome": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "average units purchased per person",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e2",
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"baseline": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "1.06 without",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"intervention": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "an additional carbon price of €3 (€50 per ton of CO2)",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e2",
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"comparison": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "0.59 with the carbon price",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"estimator": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "two-sided paired t-test",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"uncertainty": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "t(1,099) = 24.10; P < 0.001",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "insufficient_support"
},
"sample_size": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "1,100 participants",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e2",
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"population": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "representative of the German population with respect to age (above 18), gender, income, education and region of residence",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e2",
"e6"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"geography": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Germany",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e2",
"e6"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"reference_period": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "June 2023",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e6",
"e7"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"finding_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"subject": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"denominator": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"estimand": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"specification": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"expression": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"normalization": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"sample_count_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"observation_unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"treatment_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"valuation": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"adjustment": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"rate_basis": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"relationships": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
}
},
"limitations": [
"Consumption was measured over virtual products in an online survey experiment with €50/ton CO2 framing tied to real offset cancellation."
]
},
{
"id": "f2",
"title": "Voter Support for Carbon Pricing Across Five Revenue Recycling Schemes",
"kind": "research_estimate",
"summary": "Public support for carbon pricing ranged from 47.3% under State Budget to 73.1% under Climate Premium, with Climate Premium securing significantly higher vote share than all other revenue recycling options.",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"fields": {
"outcome": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "votes are in favour of the carbon price",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"intervention": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "five randomly ordered within-subject conditions: State Budget, Climate Projects, Redistribute Poor, Redistribute All, Climate Premium",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"expression": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "47.3% (State Budget), 62.6% (Climate Projects), 62.7% (Redistribute Poor), 68.8% (Redistribute All), and 73.1% (Climate Premium)",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "insufficient_support"
},
"uncertainty": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "McNemar’s tests; versus State Budget z = 14.84, versus Climate Projects z = 7.35, versus Redistribute Poor z = 7.55, versus Redistribute All z = 3.49; all P < 0.01 with Bonferroni correction",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"sample_size": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "N = 1,100",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"population": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "large representative sample of the German population",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1",
"e2"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"geography": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Germany",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e1",
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"finding_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"subject": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"comparison": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"baseline": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"denominator": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"estimand": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"estimator": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"specification": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"normalization": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"sample_count_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"observation_unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"reference_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"treatment_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"valuation": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"adjustment": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"rate_basis": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"relationships": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
}
},
"limitations": [
"Decisions were evaluated within a random dictator setup in groups of 50."
]
},
{
"id": "f3",
"title": "Underestimation of Carbon Pricing Demand Response by Participants",
"kind": "research_estimate",
"summary": "Participants significantly underestimated the reduction in purchases caused by carbon pricing, predicting a drop of only 0.17 units compared to an actual drop of 0.47 units (P < 0.001).",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"fields": {
"outcome": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "belief on how this price will affect the purchasing behaviour (drop in purchases)",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"baseline": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "actual drop of 0.47 units",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"comparison": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "participants believe that the carbon price reduces purchases by 0.17 units (s.d. = 0.41)",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"estimator": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "two-sided paired t-test",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"uncertainty": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "t(1,099) = −13.56; 95% CI (−0.338, −0.252); P < 0.001",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "insufficient_support"
},
"sample_size": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "t(1,099) [N = 1,100]",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"population": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "German population representative sample",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e2",
"e4"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"finding_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"subject": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"intervention": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"denominator": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"estimand": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"specification": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"expression": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"normalization": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"sample_count_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"observation_unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"reference_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"treatment_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"geography": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"valuation": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"adjustment": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"rate_basis": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"relationships": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
}
},
"limitations": [
"Belief elicitation was performed at the end of the experiment and incentivized with a €10 prize for a randomly selected question."
]
},
{
"id": "f4",
"title": "Systematic Underestimation of Public Support for Carbon Pricing by Citizens and Experts",
"kind": "research_estimate",
"summary": "Both survey participants (42.7%) and expert economists (45.4%) strongly underestimated average public support for carbon pricing schemes relative to actual average support (62.9%).",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"fields": {
"outcome": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "votes in favour of the carbon price (predicted versus actual)",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4",
"e5"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"baseline": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "actual number is 62.9%",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4",
"e5"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"comparison": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "participants predict 42.7% instead of 62.9%; experts expect that 45.4%",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e4",
"e5"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"sample_size": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "N = 1,100 participants and N = 369 experts",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3",
"e5"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"population": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "representative German population sample and environmental, behavioural and public economists in Germany, Austria and Switzerland",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3",
"e5"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"geography": {
"status": "reported",
"text": "Germany, Austria and Switzerland",
"unresolvedReason": null,
"reason": null,
"passageRefs": [
"e3"
],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "model_proposal",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "source_anchored"
},
"finding_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"subject": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"intervention": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"denominator": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"estimand": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"estimator": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"specification": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"expression": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"normalization": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"uncertainty": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"sample_count_role": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"observation_unit": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"reference_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"treatment_period": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"valuation": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"adjustment": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"rate_basis": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
},
"relationships": {
"status": "unresolved",
"text": null,
"unresolvedReason": "not_inspected",
"reason": "This field was not supplied by the extractor. This does not establish absence from the publication.",
"passageRefs": [],
"alternatives": [],
"origin": "application_default",
"mappingAuthority": "proposed",
"supportCheck": "not_assessed"
}
},
"limitations": [
"Expert predictions were elicited from an online survey with a 28.0% response rate (369 of 1,318 invited experts)."
]
}
],
"passages": [
{
"id": "e1",
"segmentId": "p1",
"quote": "Nature Sustainability | Volume 7 | December 2024 | 1633–1641 1633 nature sustainability https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01466-9 Article How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling Andrej Woerner 1,2 , Taisuke Imai 2,3 , Davide D. Pace 1,2 & Klaus M. Schmidt 1,2,4",
"locator": "page 1633, header and metadata",
"printedPageLabel": "1633",
"pageIndex": 1,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 0,
"end": 295,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
},
{
"id": "e2",
"segmentId": "p2",
"quote": "We conducted an experiment with 1,100 participants who are repre- sentative of the German population. Participants were asked to make two purchase decisions about valuable but CO2-generating virtual products. In each decision, the participants decide whether to buy zero, one or two products. The first decision involved a low price per product, while the second decision had an additional carbon price of €3 (€50 per ton of CO2). Following these decisions, the participants voted on whether to implement the purchase decision either with or without the carbon price.",
"locator": "page 1634, column 2, Results",
"printedPageLabel": "1634",
"pageIndex": 2,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 1601,
"end": 2168,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
},
{
"id": "e3",
"segmentId": "p3",
"quote": "When revenues go to the general budget of the federal government, a minor- ity of participants votes for carbon pricing (47.3%). This is reflected in reported low trust in the government: 52.5% (21.5%) disagreed (agreed) with the statement “I have confidence in the German government to use taxpayers’ money wisely”. However, the majority approves the carbon price under the other revenue recycling schemes. In conditions Climate Projects and Redis- tribute Poor, 62.6% and 62.7% of the votes are in favour of the carbon price, respectively. This percentage increases to 68.8% in the Redistrib- ute All condition and further jumps to 73.1% in the Climate Premium condition. All of these schemes receive significantly more than 50% of the votes (two-sided test of proportions; P < 0.001). Interestingly, Redistribute All fares better than Redistribute Poor, because richer participants are significantly less likely to vote in favour of the latter (McNemar’s test; 54.5% versus 68.8%; z = 6.63; P < 0.001) while poorer participants support both schemes similarly (McNemar’s test; 70.6% versus 68.8%; z = 1.09; P = 0.275). The share of votes in favour of the Climate Premium is significantly higher than for any other scheme (McNemar’s tests; versus State Budget z = 14.84, versus Climate Projects z = 7.35, versus Redistribute Poor z = 7.55, versus Redistribute All z = 3.49; all P < 0.01 with Bonferroni correction).",
"locator": "page 1635, column 2, Voting behaviour",
"printedPageLabel": "1635",
"pageIndex": 3,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 3732,
"end": 5148,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
},
{
"id": "e4",
"segmentId": "p4",
"quote": "Beliefs about buying behaviour . The participants significantly underestimated the effect of the carbon price on buying behaviour. Figure 4 shows that, on average, participants believe that the carbon price reduces purchases by 0.17 units (s.d. = 0.41), significantly less than the actual drop of 0.47 units (two-sided paired t -test; t (1,099) = −13.56; 95% CI (−0.338, −0.252); P < 0.001), which is more than 2.5 times as large. This misperception is important because beliefs about the effectiveness of climate policy are a key driver of public support 20 .",
"locator": "page 1636, column 2, Misperceptions",
"printedPageLabel": "1636",
"pageIndex": 4,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 2657,
"end": 3217,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
},
{
"id": "e5",
"segmentId": "p4",
"quote": "Beliefs about voting behaviour . Figure 5 shows that participants strongly and significantly underestimate the support for carbon pric- ing, regardless of the revenue recycling scheme. Averaged over all conditions, they predict 42.7% instead of 62.9% of votes in favour of the carbon price. The underestimation is especially large in the State Budget (26.5 percentage points) and Climate Premium (23.2 percentage points) conditions.",
"locator": "page 1636–1637, Expert predictions",
"printedPageLabel": "1636-1637",
"pageIndex": 4,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 4083,
"end": 4515,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
},
{
"id": "e6",
"segmentId": "p6",
"quote": "The experiment was carried out in June 2023 in collaboration with Bilendi, a market research company specializing in online surveys with proprietary panels in several European countries. There were 1,100 par- ticipants representative of the German population with respect to age (above 18), gender, income, education and region of residence (see Sup- plementary Table 1 for a summary of demographic characteristics).",
"locator": "page 1638, Methods",
"printedPageLabel": "1638",
"pageIndex": 6,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 1123,
"end": 1539,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
},
{
"id": "e7",
"segmentId": "p5",
"quote": "Averaged over all conditions, experts expect that 45.4% of votes are in favour, while the actual number is 62.9%. Importantly, while experts correctly predict the three carbon dividend schemes to be the most popular, they mistakenly believe Redistribute All and Redistribute Poor to get more support than the Climate Premium.",
"locator": "page 1637, column 1, lines 1-8",
"printedPageLabel": "1637",
"pageIndex": 5,
"surface": "pdf_text_projection",
"quoteCheck": "matched",
"start": 193,
"end": 518,
"offsetUnit": "UTF-16"
}
],
"coverage": {
"inspectedSegments": [
"p1",
"p2",
"p3",
"p4",
"p5",
"p6",
"p7",
"p8",
"p9",
"p10",
"p11",
"p12",
"p13",
"p14",
"p15"
],
"physicalPages": 15,
"admittedCharacters": 64797,
"nativePdfProvidedToModel": true,
"visualValidation": "not_performed",
"findingLimit": 24,
"selection": "model_selected_findings",
"limitations": [
"Selected findings are not an exhaustive inventory. Publisher authority and semantic mappings are not established by this analysis.",
"Physical PDF page indices differ from printed page labels. Text order and table header/note association are not independently validated.",
"The native PDF is supplied to Gemini. Figure, scan and layout interpretations without matched text anchors remain unverified."
]
},
"processing": {
"provider": "Gemini",
"model": "gemini-3.8-flash",
"promptVersion": "publication-extraction/0.2.0",
"startedAt": "2026-11-01T06:25:03.388Z",
"completedAt": "2026-11-01T06:25:22.119Z",
"transforms": [
"pdf-text-items-in-parser-order/v1",
"whitespace-normalization/v1"
],
"tool": "submit_economic_extraction",
"modelCalls": 1,
"usage": {
"inputTokens": 25292,
"outputTokens": 3873
}
},
"checks": [
{
"code": "APPLICATION_SCHEMA",
"outcome": "passed",
"detail": "Tool arguments match the versioned draft schema, field scopes and knowledge-state invariants."
},
{
"code": "SOURCE_ANCHORS",
"outcome": "passed",
"detail": "7 of 7 quotations uniquely match the admitted text projection. This checks location, not meaning."
},
{
"code": "FIELD_SUPPORT",
"outcome": "partial",
"detail": "3 populated finding fields lack matched literal/source support. Field attribution, table association and entailment are not assessed."
}
],
"assessment": {
"scope": "application_structure_and_anchor_checks",
"semanticConformance": "not_assessed",
"mappingReview": "not_performed",
"downstreamSuitability": "not_assessed"
},
"limitations": [
"Selected findings are not an exhaustive inventory. Publisher authority and semantic mappings are not established by this analysis.",
"Physical PDF page indices differ from printed page labels. Text order and table header/note association are not independently validated.",
"The native PDF is supplied to Gemini. Figure, scan and layout interpretations without matched text anchors remain unverified.",
"Study stakes in experimental settings are smaller than real-life carbon pricing policies, and virtual product decisions were framed around carbon offset purchases.",
"Expert sample relies on voluntary survey participation (28% response rate) from academic economists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.",
"All assignments are proposed. Matching quotations and tokens do not certify economic meaning, causal claims, independent support or compatibility for calculation.",
"Source bytes are request-scoped, not archived. Downloaded hashes and quotations do not guarantee future source recovery.",
"Findings and repeated specifications from one publication are potentially dependent. No coefficient conversion, pooling or statistical inference was performed."
],
"library": {
"recordId": "83cb706890c7c325db46a47139ade659",
"url": "/library/83cb706890c7c325db46a47139ade659/",
"savedAt": "2026-11-01T06:25:22.119Z",
"visibility": "public"
}
}Discovery coverage and record identity
Record 83cb706890c7c325db46a47139ade659
Keyword metadata: 354 of 354 distinct tokens indexed; 0 omitted. Semantic index: ready.
Projection record-summary-001-768-v1: 35 of 119 field lines, 1594 UTF-8 bytes. The complete result remains in the saved record.
Reopening this record does not run publication analysis again.