The net carbon footprint of a newly created boreal hydroelectric reservoir
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present here the first comprehensive assessment of the carbon (C) footprint associated with the creation of a boreal hydroelectric reservoir (Eastmain‐1 in northern Québec, Canada). This is the result of a large‐scale, interdisciplinary study that spanned over a 7‐years period (2003–2009), where we quantified the major C gas (CO 2 and CH 4 ) sources and sinks of the terrestrial and aquatic components of the pre‐flood landscape, and also for the reservoir following the impoundment in 2006. The pre‐flood landscape was roughly neutral in terms of C, and the balance between pre‐ and post‐flood C sources/sinks indicates that the reservoir was initially (first year post‐flood in 2006) a large net source of CO 2 (2270 mg C m −2 d −1 ) but a much smaller source of CH 4 (0.2 mg C m −2 d −1 ). While net CO 2 emissions declined steeply in subsequent years (down to 835 mg C m −2 d −1 in 2009), net CH 4 emissions remained constant or increased slightly relative to pre‐flood emissions. Our results also suggest that the reservoir will continue to emit carbon gas over the long‐term at rates exceeding the carbon footprint of the pre‐flood landscape, although the sources of C supporting these emissions have yet to be determined. Extrapolation of these empirical trends over the projected life span (100 years) of the reservoir yields integrated long‐term net C emissions per energy generation well below the range of the natural‐gas combined‐cycle, which is considered the current industry standard.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it