MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050041038 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1412953111

Methane emissions from Alaska in 2012 from CARVE airborne observations

2014· article· en· W2050041038 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rachel Chang, Charles E. Miller, A. Karion, Colm Sweeney, Bruce C. Daube, John M. Henderson, Marikate Mountain, J. Eluszkiewicz, J. B. Miller, L. M. Bruhwiler, Steven C. Wofsy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationAmes Research CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesArcticMethaneBorealMethane emissionsLagrangianWetlandFlux (metallurgy)ClimatologyGreenhouse gasGeographyGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determined methane (CH4) emissions from Alaska using airborne measurements from the Carbon Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE). Atmospheric sampling was conducted between May and September 2012 and analyzed using a customized version of the polar weather research and forecast model linked to a Lagrangian particle dispersion model (stochastic time-inverted Lagrangian transport model). We estimated growing season CH4 fluxes of 8 ± 2 mg CH4⋅m(-2)⋅d(-1) averaged over all of Alaska, corresponding to fluxes from wetlands of 56(-13)(+22) mg CH4⋅m(-2)⋅d(-1) if we assumed that wetlands are the only source from the land surface (all uncertainties are 95% confidence intervals from a bootstrapping analysis). Fluxes roughly doubled from May to July, then decreased gradually in August and September. Integrated emissions totaled 2.1 ± 0.5 Tg CH4 for Alaska from May to September 2012, close to the average (2.3; a range of 0.7 to 6 Tg CH4) predicted by various land surface models and inversion analyses for the growing season. Methane emissions from boreal Alaska were larger than from the North Slope; the monthly regional flux estimates showed no evidence of enhanced emissions during early spring or late fall, although these bursts may be more localized in time and space than can be detected by our analysis. These results provide an important baseline to which future studies can be compared.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations98
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207