Life-Cycle Analysis of GHG Emissions for CNG and Diesel Buses in Beijing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse gas and criteria air contaminants associated with motor vehicles are major items in the national inventories of these emissions. While exhaust after-treatment technology has achieved dramatic reductions in the emissions of criteria air contaminants (CO, HC, NOx, PM), alternative technologies for comparable GHG emission reductions are much more challenging. The use of renewable energy forms, or alternative fuels with lower carbon intensity are engineering responses that require careful assessment on a location specific basis before the emission reductions benefits can be accurately assessed. Life-cycle analysis tools such as NRCan's GHGenius model have been developed to serve as analytical frameworks and assist in such assessment. This paper starts by reviewing the issues involved in the life-cycle analysis of alternative transportation technologies, and the available life-cycle tools such as Life Cycle Emissions Model (LEM), GHGenius and Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model. The paper then examines the case of compressed natural gas (CNG) vs. diesel from the perspective of a hypothetical Clean Development mechanism (CDM) project for the CNG transit bus fleet in Beijing that was completed as part of the Canada-China Cooperation for Climate Change program.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it