Deducing Ground-to-Air Emissions from Observed Trace Gas Concentrations: A Field Trial with Wind Disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inverse-dispersion techniques allow inference of a gas emission rate Q from measured air concentration. In “ideal surface layer problems,” where Monin–Obukhov similarity theory (MOST) describes the winds transporting the gas, the application of the technique can be straightforward. This study examines the accuracy of an ideal MOST-based inference, but in a nonideal setting. From a 6 m × 6 m synthetic area source surrounded by a 20 m × 20 m square border of a windbreak fence (1.25 m tall), Q is estimated. Open-path lasers gave line-averaged concentration CL at positions downwind of the source, and an idealized backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS) dispersion model was used to infer QbLS. Despite the disturbance of the mean wind and turbulence caused by the fence, the QbLS estimates were accurate when ambient winds (measured upwind of the plot) were assumed in the bLS model. In the worst cases, with CL measured adjacent to a plot fence, QbLS overestimated Q by an average of 50%. However, if these near-fence locations are eliminated, QbLS averaged within 2% of the true Q over 61 fifteen-minute observations (with a standard deviation σQ/Q = 0.20). Poorer accuracy occurred when in-plot wind measurements were used in the bLS model. The results show that when an inverse-dispersion technique is applied to disturbed flows without accounting for the disturbance, the outcome may still be of acceptable accuracy if judgment is applied in the placement of the concentration detector.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".