MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564275380 · doi:10.1190/tle36010033.1

Mapping methane sources and their emission rates using an aircraft

2016· article· en· W2564275380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin Terry, Malcolm Argyle, Sol Meyer, Luise Sander, Bill Hirst

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneEnvironmental scienceMethane emissionsRemote sensingMeteorologyGeologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finding efficient and accurate ways to map and monitor methane sources is becoming a priority within government and industry, both for environmental applications and hydrocarbon exploration. For more than 10 years, Sander Geophysics and Shell have cooperated to develop airborne methods to detect and measure the enhanced methane concentrations associated with ground-level sources. The resulting data can be processed using a Markov chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) to determine the locations and emission rates of the methane sources responsible. SGMethane is the name of Sander Geophysics' methane survey method, resulting from the collaboration with Shell. It consists of an optical gas sensor, an anemometer, a GPS, and an inertial navigation system, analogous to Shell's LightTouch method. A test survey was flown over two active waste landfill sites close to Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and the modeled data corroborated the locations of the dumpsites. Several commercial surveys for environmental monitoring and hydrocarbon exploration have been flown in a wide variety of different countries and climates; these show that both systems can detect localized anomalous methane sources even in the presence of dense vegetation, such as a tropical rainforest.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207