MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115379833 · doi:10.1029/2019gb006218

Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Peat Combustion in Wildfires on Indonesian Peatlands, and Their Uncertainty

2020· article· en· W3115379833 on OpenAlexaff
María José Rodríguez Vasquez, Anthony Benoist, Jean‐Marc Roda, Mathieu Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceVariance (accounting)Monte Carlo methodCombustionAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsChemistryGeologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peatlands play an important role as carbon pools, storing a third of the world's soil carbon. However, peatlands in Southeast Asia have suffered from depletion due to economic pressure and the demand for natural resources, often caused by land use changes and fires. Usually, land preparation requires drainage and fires, resulting in major greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. In this work, we propose a general equation to estimate GHG emissions from fires on peatlands. The contribution of each parameter to the variance of the estimated GHG emissions was also evaluated. We used Monte Carlo simulation, meta‐analyses, and an analytical expression of variance. GHG emissions of a single fire episode were estimated at 842 Mg ha −1 CO 2 eq. with a standard deviation of 466 Mg ha −1 CO 2 eq. The parameter contributing most to variance was the depth of burn, at 94.2%, followed by bulk density, at 5.5%, and emission factors, at 0.3%. Our estimated GHG emissions were close to the amount estimated from the default values provided by the IPCC, strengthening confidence in the IPCC methodology. When the depth of burn was assessed by remote sensing, the parameter that most contributed to variance became the fire‐damaged area, followed by the depth of burn. The contribution of each parameter to variance, as estimated in this study, made it possible to prioritize the effort in uncertainty reduction. Combining Monte Carlo simulation and an analytical expression of variance could be a promising way of obtaining more reliable confidence intervals.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207