MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980323658 · doi:10.1080/09593332208618315

Methane Oxidation in Three Alberta Soils: Influence of Soil Parameters and Methane Flux Rates

2001· article· en· W1980323658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vincent B. Stein, J. Patrick A. Hettiaratchi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneSoil waterEnvironmental scienceLoamAnaerobic oxidation of methaneEnvironmental chemistryWater contentGreenhouse gasPeatMoistureMethanotrophEnvironmental engineeringSoil scienceChemistryEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current concern over the potentially negative impacts of climate change has brought attention to anthropogenic sources of methane, a primary greenhouse gas. Two such emission sources are methane leakage at heavy oil wells and sanitary landfills. At both of these sources, substantial quantities of methane could potentially be oxidised by methanotrophic microbes living in soils. Optimisation of this phenomenon may serve as an inexpensive technique for reducing methane emissions. Soil column and batch incubation experiments were performed on a landfill loam, an agricultural loam and a sedge peat to gain a better quantitative understanding of the biological and physical processes limiting CH4 oxidation in soils that undergo the freeze-thaw cycles associated with northern climates. Moisture content emerged as a critical variable that can limit a soil's CH4 oxidation potential. For example, the oxidation rate of the agricultural soil was seen to increase by an order of magnitude after increasing its moisture content from 6% to 10% of its dry weight.

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)0.000
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 score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations119
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207