MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1924214365 · doi:10.5194/acpd-15-22715-2015

Investigation of error sources in regional inverse estimates of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada

2015· article· en· W1924214365 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elton Chan, Douglas Chan, Misa Ishizawa, Felix Vogel, J. Brioude, Andy Delcloo, Yuehua Wu, B. Jin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloInversion (geology)Environmental scienceFlux (metallurgy)ScalingBayesian probabilityEstimationObservational errorMonte Carlo methodStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Inversion models can use atmospheric concentration measurements to estimate surface fluxes. This study is an evaluation of the errors in a regional flux inversion model for different provinces of Canada, Alberta (AB), Saskatchewan (SK) and Ontario (ON). Using CarbonTracker model results as the target, the synthetic data experiment analyses examined the impacts of the errors from the Bayesian optimisation method, prior flux distribution and the atmospheric transport model, as well as their interactions. The scaling factors for different sub-regions were estimated by the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation and cost function minimization (CFM) methods. The CFM method results are sensitive to the relative size of the assumed model-observation mismatch and prior flux error variances. Experiment results show that the estimation error increases with the number of sub-regions using the CFM method. For the region definitions that lead to realistic flux estimates, the numbers of sub-regions for the western region of AB/SK combined and the eastern region of ON are 11 and 4 respectively. The corresponding annual flux estimation errors for the western and eastern regions using the MCMC (CFM) method are -7 and -3 % (0 and 8 %) respectively, when there is only prior flux error. The estimation errors increase to 36 and 94 % (40 and 232 %) resulting from transport model error alone. When prior and transport model errors co-exist in the inversions, the estimation errors become 5 and 85 % (29 and 201 %). This result indicates that estimation errors are dominated by the transport model error and can in fact cancel each other and propagate to the flux estimates non-linearly. In addition, it is possible for the posterior flux estimates having larger differences than the prior compared to the target fluxes, and the posterior uncertainty estimates could be unrealistically small that do not cover the target. The systematic evaluation of the different components of the inversion model can help in the understanding of the posterior estimates and percentage errors. Stable and realistic sub-regional and monthly flux estimates for western region of AB/SK can be obtained, but not for the eastern region of ON. This indicates that it is likely a real observation-based inversion for the annual provincial emissions will work for the western region whereas; improvements are needed with the current inversion setup before real inversion is performed for the eastern region.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→