MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194750197 · doi:10.2172/1813983

Methodology for Development of Geologic Storage Estimates for Carbon Dioxide

2008· report· en· W3194750197 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Hovorka, Dawn Deal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationAtlas (anatomy)Resource (disambiguation)Carbon dioxideEarth sciencePortfolioEnvironmental scienceCarbon capture and storage (timeline)Environmental resource managementGeologyClimate changeComputer scienceBusinessOceanographyChemistryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document is an update to the 2006 “Methodology for Development of Carbon Sequestration Capacity Estimates” published in the 2007 Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada (Atlas I). This document describes the methodologies being used to produce the geologic resource estimates for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage in the 2008 Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada (Atlas II) – in development. The rationales presented are used to simplify assumptions for estimating the amount of CO2 that can be stored in subsurface geologic environments of the United States and parts of Canada. The primary focus of this update is to add additional basins and formations to the CO2 storage portfolio, document procedures completely, and provide definitions of CO2 resource that reflect the uncertainty of geologic resource estimates for CO2.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207