MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376128101 · doi:10.5194/amt-2023-27-ac1

Reply on RC1

2023· peer-review· en· W4376128101 on OpenAlexafffund
James P. Williams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMethaneVolume (thermodynamics)Component (thermodynamics)Environmental scienceWork (physics)Methane emissionsMethane gasNuclear engineeringPetroleum engineeringProcess engineeringChemistryPhysicsEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Direct measurements of methane emissions at the component level provide the level of detail necessary for developing actionable mitigation strategies. As such, there is a need to understand the magnitude of component level methane emission sources and test methane quantification methods that can capture methane emissions from component level sources. The static chamber method is a direct measurement technique that is being applied to measure large and complex methane sources such as oil and gas infrastructure. In this work we compile component level methane emission factors from the IPCC emission factor database to understand the magnitude of component level methane flowrates, review the tested flowrates and measurement techniques from 38 controlled release experiments, and perform 64 controlled release testing of static chambers methodology with mass flowrates of 1.02, 10.2, 102, and 512 grams of methane per hour (g/hour). We vary the leak properties, chamber shape, chamber size, and usage of fans to evaluate how these factors affect the accuracy of the static chamber method. We find that 99 % of component level methane emission rates from the IPCC emission factor database are below 100 g/hour, and that 76 % of previously-available controlled release experiments did not test for methane mass flowrates below 100 g/hour. We find that the static chamber method quantified methane flowrates with an overall accuracy of ±14 %, and that optimal chamber configurations (i.e., chamber shape, volume, usage of fans) can improve accuracy to below ±5 %. We find that smaller chambers (<20 L) performed better than larger volume chambers (>20 L), regardless of the shape of chamber or usage of fans. However, we found that the usage of fans can substantially increase the accuracy of larger chambers, especially at higher mass flowrates of methane (>100 g/hour). Overall, our findings can be used to engineer static chamber systems for future direct measurement campaigns targeting a wide range of sources, including landfills, manholes, and oil and natural gas infrastructure.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0270.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2120.172

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207