MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242025135 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14652789.v1

Modeling of Methane Gas Generation and Emissions from Landfills

2021· preprint· en· W4242025135 on OpenAlexaffabout
Khanam Mahbuba

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsMethaneLandfill gasMethane gasMunicipal solid wasteCelluloseEnvironmental scienceMethane emissionsNatural gasGreenhouse gasWaste managementMoistureEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEngineeringChemical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was carried out to develop a model capable of predicting the generation and potential emission of methane gas into the environment. Ryerson Landfill Gas Model (RLFGM) was developed using the IPCC tier two model (revised guidelines), the most recent national assessment model (Brown et. al. 1999) from UK and the model developed from DEFRA, UK. This report outlines the findings of the study and its recommendations. The study was performed on detailed characterization of solid waste as RDO, MDO and SDO and by dividing these waste components into nine waste fractions. The waste fractions are described by the percentage of moisture content of the fraction, the proportion of cellulose and hemi-cellulose, and the percentage of the degradability of the cellulose and hemi-cellulose fraction. Methane generating potential (L₀) was calculated from DOC and DOC(subscript f) value. The three methane generation rate constants (k) were used. Methane oxidation, methane correction factor, percentage of methane gas recovery, percentage of methane content in landfill gas were assumed based on comprehensive literature review. After the verification of the output of the RLFGM model with the LandGEM model it was found that the model is producing similar type of output graph as the LandGEM model but the rate of emissions of methane gas into the environment is lower in RLFGM model. It has been concluded that RLFGM model gives the realistic output with respect to individual landfill sites, taking into account of specific waste streams and deposition rates.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207