MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012354629 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.445

The First North American Carbon Storage Atlas

2013· article· en· W2012354629 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Wright, F.M. Mourits, Leonardo Beltran Rodríguez, Moisés Dávila Serrano

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersSecretaría de Energía de MéxicoU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsGeneral partnershipFossil fuelCoalEnvironmental scienceSedimentary rockGreenhouse gasEnvironmental protectionEarth scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyGeologyEngineeringBusinessOceanographyWaste managementGeochemistryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada, Mexico and the United States formed the North American Carbon Atlas Partnership (NACAP) in December 2008 to collaborate in the development of a North American Carbon Storage Atlas (NACSA). This partnership was formally announced by the Presidents of the United States and Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada at their meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, in August 2009. The NACAP effort identified and quantified large stationary sources of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, identified and screened sedimentary basins suitable for CO 2 storage, and estimated the CO 2 storage resources of the three most common types of geological media—oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal and deep saline formations—in those basins using publicly available geological data. To develop the atlas NACAP had to harmonize storage resource estimation methodologies, define a common scale and resolution, and develop procedures for the treatment of shared sedimentary basins across national borders. Although North America is a large emitter of CO 2 , the results of the assessments by the three countries demonstrate that potential CO 2 storage resources in North America are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than current CO 2 emissions. Certainly, practical considerations will reduce these estimates. The maps of the large stationary CO 2 sources and of the CO 2 storage resources show that the sources and storage resources frequently either overlay each other or are within manageable distances of each other, making carbon capture and storage an attractive option to reduce CO 2 emissions.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ProcediaSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207