MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948862158 · doi:10.1029/2011gb004187

The net carbon footprint of a newly created boreal hydroelectric reservoir

2012· article· en· W1948862158 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cristian R. Teodoru, Julie Bastien, Marie‐Claude Bonneville, Paul A. del Giorgio, Maud Demarty, Michelle Garneau, Jean‐François Hélie, Luc G. Pelletier, Yves T. Prairie, Nigel T. Roulet, Ian B. Strachan, Alain Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecMcGill UniversityGDG EnvironnementUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHydroelectricityFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Carbon footprintBorealGreenhouse gasCarbon cycleExtrapolationPhysical geographyEcosystemEcologyGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (CO2 and CH4) 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 CO2 (2270 mg C m−2 d−1) but a much smaller source of CH4 (0.2 mg C m−2 d−1). While net CO2 emissions declined steeply in subsequent years (down to 835 mg C m−2 d−1 in 2009), net CH4 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations164
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207