MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004973099 · doi:10.2172/1597217

Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California

2020· report· en· W3004973099 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah E. Baker, Joshuah K. Stolaroff, George Peridas, Simon H. Pang, Hannah Goldstein, Felicia R. Lucci, Wenqin Li, Eric Slessarev, Jennifer Pett‐Ridge, Frederick J. Ryerson, J. L. Wagoner, Whitney Kirkendall, Roger D. Aines, Daniel L. Sanchez, Bodie Cabiyo, J. Wesley Baker, Sean McCoy, Sam Uden, Ron C. Runnebaum, Jennifer Wilcox, Peter Psarras, Hélène Pilorgé, Noah McQueen, Daniel S. Maynard, Colin McCormick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCarbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon neutralityScope (computer science)IncentiveEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxideCarbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphereNeutralityBiomass (ecology)Environmental economicsGreenhouse gasCarbon fibersNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is an assessment of negative emissions pathways - ones that physically remove CO2 from the atmosphere - that can help California achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, or sooner. It integrates original research findings with current published research on three main pillars of negative emissions: natural and working lands, carbon capture from biomass conversion to fuels, and direct air capture. The focus and scope of this report is unique: it only addresses practices and technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the air. It also encompasses the entire breadth of strategies, from land management to the latest technological options, and it evaluates the cost of every step of the solution, from waste biomass collection to carbon dioxide transport and geologic storage. The methods are intended to be transparent; details of the calculations and underlying data are included in the report body and appendices. This study intentionally avoids any discussion of policies and does not include current incentives; it provides a range of options, tradeoffs and costs that can be used to inform future policies. The key finding of this report is that carbon neutrality is achievable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations109
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCarbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207