A national assessment of urban forest carbon storage and sequestration in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During a time of rapid urban growth and development, it is becoming ever more important to monitor the carbon fluxes of our cities. Unlike Canada’s commercially managed forests that have a long history of inventory and modelling tools, there is both a lack of coordinated data and considerable uncertainty on assessment procedures for urban forest carbon. Nonetheless, independent studies have been carried out across Canada. To improve upon Canada’s federal government reporting on carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests, this study builds on existing data to develop an updated assessment of carbon storage and sequestration for Canada’s urban forests. Using canopy cover estimates derived from ortho-imagery and satellite imagery ranging from 2008 to 2012 and field-based urban forest inventory and assessment data from 16 Canadian cities and one US city, this study found that Canadian urban forests store approximately 27,297.8 kt C (− 37%, + 45%) in above and belowground biomass and sequester approximately 1497.7 kt C year −1 (− 26%, + 28%). In comparison with the previous national assessment of urban forest carbon, this study suggested that in urban areas carbon storage has been overestimated and carbon sequestration has been underestimated. Maximizing urban forest carbon sinks will contribute to Canada’s mitigation efforts and, while being a smaller carbon sink compared to commercial forests, will also provide important ecosystem services and co-benefits to approximately 83% of Canadian people.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it