MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144990628 · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112418

Blinded evaluation of airborne methane source detection using Bridger Photonics LiDAR

2021· article· en· W3144990628 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew R. Johnson, David R. Tyner, Alexander J. Szekeres

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing of Environment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBC Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society
KeywordsRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceLidarSensitivity (control systems)Wind speedMethaneComputer scienceMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controlled, fully-blinded methane releases and ancillary on-site wind measurements were performed during a separate airborne survey of active oil and gas facilities to quantitatively evaluate the capabilities and potential utility of the Bridger Photonics LiDAR-based airborne Gas Mapping LiDAR™ (GML) methane measurement technology under realistic field conditions. Importantly, although Bridger Photonics knew there was a ground team working in the area to deploy wind sensors as part of the broader survey of facilities, they had no knowledge whatsoever that controlled releases were taking place and were not informed of this until all data processing was complete. Thus, the presented data allow a true, fully-blinded assessment of the airborne technology's ability to both detect and locate unknown methane sources within active oil and gas facilities, as well as to quantify their release rates. Results were used to derive a lower-sensitivity limit threshold as a function of wind speed, which matches well with the broader field survey results. Comparison of measurement results with and without the benefit of on-site wind data reveal that uncertainty in the GML source quantification is a direct linear function of the uncertainty in the wind speed. Quantification uncertainties (1σ) of ±31–68% can be expected for sources near the sensitivity limit. The derived sensitivity limit function was incorporated into exploratory simulations using the Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit (FEAST), which suggest that the Bridger GML technology has comparable performance to optical gas imaging (OGI) camera surveys both in terms of fraction of total emissions detected and anticipated net mitigation. The relative performance of the Bridger GML technology would be expected to improve or worsen as the assumed underlying distribution of source magnitudes becomes more or less positively skewed (i.e. more or less dominated by larger sources such as tank vents). Overall, the Bridger GML technology is shown to be capable of detecting, locating, and quantifying individual sources at or below the magnitudes of recent regulated venting limits. The presented detection sensitivity function will be useful for modelling potential alternate leak detection and repair strategies and interpreting future airborne measurement data.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations114
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote Sensing of EnvironmentSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207