Machine Learning to Predict Area Fugitive Emission Fluxes of GHGs from Open-Pit Mines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from open-pit mines pose a global climate challenge, which necessitates appropriate quantification to support effective mitigation measures. This study considers the area-fugitive methane advective flux (as a proxy for emission flux) released from a tailings pond and two open-pit mines, denominated “old” and “new”, within a facility in northern Canada. To estimate the emission fluxes of methane from these sources, this research employed near-surface observations and modeling using the weather research and forecasting (WRF) passive tracer dispersion method. Various machine learning (ML) methods were trained and tested on these data for the operational forecasting of emissions. Predicted emission fluxes and meteorological variables from the WRF model were used as training and input datasets for ML algorithms. A series of 10 ML algorithms were evaluated. The four models that generated the most accurate forecasts were selected. These ML models are the multi-layer perception (MLP) artificial neural network, the gradient boosting (GBR), XGBOOST (XGB), and support vector machines (SVM). Overall, the simulations predicted the emission fluxes with R2 (-) values higher than 0.8 (-). Considering the bias (Tonnes h−1), the ML predicted the emission fluxes within 6.3%, 3.3%, and 0.3% of WRF predictions for the old mine, new mine, and the pond, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".