MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Howland Forest, ME, USA: Multi-Gas Flux Record (CO2, CH4, N2O) Establishes New Forest Products Linked to Social Cost of Emission in Contrast to Carbon Limited Sequestration Proxies

2021· preprint· en· W3154777293 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno D.V Marino, Nahuel Bautista, Brandt Rousseaux

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsEmissions Reduction Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEddy covarianceGreenhouse gasCarbon sequestrationEnvironmental scienceRevenueNatural resource economicsBusinessEcosystemAccountingEconomicsEcologyCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest carbon sequestration is a widely accepted natural climate solution, however, methods to determine net carbon offsets are limited to commercial carbon proxies and CO2 eddy covariance research. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHG) (e.g., CH4, N2O) receive less attention in the context of forests, in part, due to emphasis on CO2 and the operational requirements and cost for three-gas eddy covariance platforms. In this study, Howland forest flux tower (CO2, CH4) and soil flux data (CO2, CH4, N2O), representing net emission reductions, are linked to their respective social costs to estimate commercial revenue if sold as a GHG social cost forest offset product (GHG-SCF). Estimated annual revenue for GHG-SCF products, applicable to realization of a Green New Deal, range from 120,000 covering the site area of 557 acres in 2021, to 12,000,000 for extrapolation to 40,000 acres in 2040, assuming a 3% discount rate. The Howland Forest CO2 flux record for two adjacent towers is compared to California Air Resources Board forest carbon proxy data for compliance sequestration offsets, the only project site where these approaches overlap. Overcrediting, incomplete carbon accounting with annual errors of up to 2,256%, inadequate third-party verification, and limited application to non-CO2 GHG’s are established. In contrast, direct measurement of one or more GHG’s offers new forest products and revenue incentives to restore and conserve forests worldwide.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.010

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207