MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793477774 · doi:10.1002/lol2.10073

Greenhouse gas emissions from lakes and impoundments: Upscaling in the face of global change

2018· article· en· W2793477774 on OpenAlexafffund
Tonya DelSontro, Jake J. Beaulieu, John Downing

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinnesota Sea Grant, University of MinnesotaHydro-QuébecU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsGreenhouse gasFace (sociological concept)Environmental scienceClimate changeNatural resource economicsOceanographyGeologyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lakes and impoundments are important sources of greenhouse gases (GHG: i.e., CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O), yet global emission estimates are based on regionally biased averages and elementary upscaling. We assembled the largest global dataset to date on emission rates of all three GHGs and found they covary with lake size and trophic state. Fitted models were upscaled to estimate global emission using global lake size inventories and a remotely sensed global lake productivity distribution. Traditional upscaling approaches overestimated CO 2 and N 2 O emission but underestimated CH 4 by half. Our upscaled size‐productivity weighted estimates (1.25–2.30 Pg of CO 2 ‐equivalents annually) are nearly 20% of global CO 2 fossil fuel emission with ∼ 75% of the climate impact due to CH 4 . Moderate global increases in eutrophication could translate to 5–40% increases in the GHG effects in the atmosphere, adding the equivalent effect of another 13% of fossil fuel combustion or an effect equal to GHG emissions from current land use change.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations566
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and Oceanography LettersSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207