MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367054207 · doi:10.1029/2022gb007658

Inland Water Greenhouse Gas Budgets for RECCAP2: 2. Regionalization and Homogenization of Estimates

2023· article· en· W4367054207 on OpenAlexaff
Ronny Lauerwald, George H. Allen, Bridget R. Deemer, Shaoda Liu, Taylor Maavara, Peter A. Raymond, Lewis Alcott, David Bastviken, Adam Hastie, Meredith A. Holgerson, Matthew S. Johnson, Bernhard Lehner, Peirong Lin, Alessandra Marzadri, Lishan Ran, Hanqin Tian, Xiao Yang, Yuanzhi Yao, Pierre Regnier

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Environment Research CouncilHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasEuropean CommissionSight Research UKEuropean Resuscitation CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceNitrous oxideCarbon dioxideMethaneSTREAMSHydrology (agriculture)Atmospheric sciencesGlobal warmingCarbon dioxide equivalentClimate changeOceanographyChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inland waters are important sources of the greenhouse gasses (GHGs) carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) to the atmosphere. In the framework of the second phase of the REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP‐2) initiative, we synthesize existing estimates of GHG emissions from streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs, and homogenize them with regard to underlying global maps of water surface area distribution and the effects of seasonal ice cover. We then produce regionalized estimates of GHG emissions over 10 extensive land regions. According to our synthesis, inland water GHG emissions have a global warming potential of an equivalent emission of 13.5 (9.9–20.1) and 8.3 (5.7–12.7) Pg CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 at a 20 and 100 years horizon (GWP 20 and GWP 100 ), respectively. Contributions of CO 2 dominate GWP 100 , with rivers being the largest emitter. For GWP 20 , lakes and rivers are equally important emitters, and the warming potential of CH 4 is more important than that of CO 2 . Contributions from N 2 O are about two orders of magnitude lower. Normalized to the area of RECCAP‐2 regions, S‐America and SE‐Asia show the highest emission rates, dominated by riverine CO 2 emissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207