MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053150180 · doi:10.1002/2013gb004580

Observational constraints on the distribution, seasonality, and environmental predictors of North American boreal methane emissions

2014· article· en· W2053150180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scot M. Miller, Doug Worthy, A. M. Michalak, Steven C. Wofsy, E. A. Kort, Talya C. Havice, A. E. Andrews, E. J. Dlugokencky, Jed O. Kaplan, Patricia J. Levi, Hanqin Tian, Bowen Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAtmospheric methaneMethaneEnvironmental scienceBiogeochemical cycleWetlandFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesBayClimatologyOceanographyGeologyEcologyEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetlands comprise the single largest global source of atmospheric methane, but current flux estimates disagree in both magnitude and distribution at the continental scale. This study uses atmospheric methane observations over North America from 2007 to 2008 and a geostatistical inverse model to improve understanding of Canadian methane fluxes and associated biogeochemical models. The results bridge an existing gap between traditional top‐down, inversion studies, which typically emphasize total emission budgets, and biogeochemical models, which usually emphasize environmental processes. The conclusions of this study are threefold. First, the most complete process‐based methane models do not always describe available atmospheric methane observations better than simple models. In this study, a relatively simple model of wetland distribution, soil moisture, and soil temperature outperformed more complex model formulations. Second, we find that wetland methane fluxes have a broader spatial distribution across western Canada and into the northern U.S. than represented in existing flux models. Finally, we calculate total methane budgets for Canada and for the Hudson Bay Lowlands, a large wetland region (50–60°N, 75–96°W). Over these lowlands, we find total methane fluxes of 1.8±0.24 Tg C yr −1 , a number in the midrange of previous estimates. Our total Canadian methane budget of 16.0±1.2 Tg C yr −1 is larger than existing inventories, primarily due to high anthropogenic emissions in Alberta. However, methane observations are sparse in western Canada, and additional measurements over Alberta will constrain anthropogenic sources in that province with greater confidence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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