Evaluation of wetland methane emissions across North America using atmospheric data and inverse modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing estimates of methane (CH 4 ) fluxes from North American wetlands vary widely in both magnitude and distribution. In light of these differences, this study uses atmospheric CH 4 observations from the US and Canada to analyze seven different bottom-up, wetland CH 4 estimates reported in a recent model comparison project. We first use synthetic data to explore whether wetland CH 4 fluxes are detectable at atmospheric observation sites. We find that the observation network can detect aggregate wetland fluxes from both eastern and western Canada but generally not from the US. Based upon these results, we then use real data and inverse modeling results to analyze the magnitude, seasonality, and spatial distribution of each model estimate. The magnitude of Canadian fluxes in many models is larger than indicated by atmospheric observations. Many models predict a seasonality that is narrower than implied by inverse modeling results, possibly indicating an oversensitivity to air or soil temperatures. The LPJ-Bern and SDGVM models have a geographic distribution that is most consistent with atmospheric observations, depending upon the region and season. These models utilize land cover maps or dynamic modeling to estimate wetland coverage while most other models rely primarily on remote sensing inundation data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".