MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082414762 · doi:10.1007/s11434-011-4373-7

Emission inventories of primary particles and pollutant gases for China

2011· article· en· W2082414762 on OpenAlexaff
Guoliang Cao, Xiaoye Zhang, Sunling Gong, XinQin An, Yaqiang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Science Bulletin · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceChinaCombustionPollutantEmission inventoryBiomass burningAir quality indexAtmospheric sciencesFossil fuelAir pollutantsBiomass (ecology)AerosolMeteorologyPhysical geographyClimatologyAir pollutionGeographyChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed high-resolution emission inventories of primary particles (PM2.5, BC and OC) and pollutant gases (SO2, NO x , NH3, CO and VOCs) for China in 2007 were constructed on the basis of the latest fuel consumption data, mostly at the county level, and from socio-economic statistics and data on fossil and biomass fuels obtained from government agencies. New emission factors reflecting local features were also used. The calculated emissions were 13.212 Mt PM2.5, 1.4 Mt BC, 2.946 Mt OC, 31.584 Mt SO2, 23.248 Mt NO x , 16.017 Mt NH3, 164.856 Mt CO and 35.464 Mt VOCs. The national and regional emissions were gridded with 0.5° × 0.5° resolution for use in air quality models. Larger emissions were found in eastern and central China than in western China. The emissions estimated here are roughly equal to those obtained in previous studies, but with different contributions from because of seasonal changes in residential heating and biomass combustion. Finally, uncertainties in inventories were analyzed.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations158
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Science BulletinSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207