Comparison between Field and Laboratory Methane Oxidation Rates
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
As part of a field study aiming at evaluating the efficiency of a mixture of coarse materials (sand and gravel) with compost to oxidize fugitive CH4 emissions, column tests were performed and the results were compared to field values obtained from an experimental biocover where the CH4 loading was controlled. Three oxidation tests were performed with samples taken from this experimental biocover: For the 1st, the 0.30-m high sample was compacted with a degree of (water) saturation, Sr = 40% (air-filled porosity = 28.6%). The maximum oxidation rate was 75 g CH4/m2/d. For the 2nd, the 0.30-m high sample was placed with Sr = 63% and the maximum oxidation rate was 50 g CH4/m2/d. For the 3rd test, a 0.45-m high sample was placed with a Sr = 45% and the maximum oxidation rate attained 141 g CH4/m2/d. The oxidation rates obtained in the field (with a 0.30-m high substrate) were in the vicinity of 45 g CH4/m2/d. The rates obtained from column tests were higher than in the field mainly because column samples were not submitted to the elements (precipitation, changes in temperature, exposure to the sun, etc.) but mainly variations in degree of saturation. These results show that laboratory tests can reproduce field conditions, but to a certain extent.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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