MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001549515 · doi:10.1115/imece2019-11891

Fugitive Methane Emissions: Development of a Mobile High-Volume Sampling System

2019· article· en· W3001549515 on OpenAlexaff
Hadyan Sani Ramadhan, Amir Sharafian, Walter Mérida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneGreenhouse gasLiquefied natural gasEnvironmental scienceDiesel fuelTruckVolume (thermodynamics)Natural gasSampling (signal processing)Fuel oilWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been considered as a substitute for diesel and heavy-fuel oil in heavy-duty trucks and marine vessels, respectively. However, the widespread adoption of LNG as a fuel is hampered by its uncertain potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in comparison with diesel and heavy-fuel oil from the lifecycle standpoint. Methane is the main component of LNG and a potent GHG. In this study, the design and validation of a high-volume sampling (HVS) system are proposed to accurately measure methane emissions from the LNG fuel infrastructure, including experiment designs for calibration and system validation, and uncertainty analysis. The accuracy of HVS measurements is tested under controlled environment. The results indicate that the HVS system can quantify leak rates between 108 and 3,254 g/h with a maximum uncertainty of 10% as long as the distance between the leak source and the HVS system sampling port is maintained at less than 50 mm. In future work, the HVS system will be used to characterize methane emissions from LNG offloading or bunkering process, and update the GHG inventories in North America to fill the knowledge gap in the complete lifecycle analysis of LNG fuel for heavy-duty vehicles and marine vessels.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207