Comment on egusphere-2023-1408
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from combustion sources are uncertain in many places across the globe. Satellites have the ability to detect and quantify emissions from large CO2 point sources, including coal-fired power plants. In this study, we tasked the PRecursore IperSpettrale della Missione Applicativa (PRISMA) satellite imaging spectrometer and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) instrument onboard the International Space Station at over 30 coal-fired power plants routinely between 2021–2022. CO2 plumes were detected in 50 % of acquired PRISMA scenes, which is consistent with the combined influence of viewing parameters on detection (solar illumination, surface reflectance) and unknown factors (like daily operational status). We compare satellite-derived emission rates to in situ stack emission observations and find average agreement to within 27 % for PRISMA and 30 % for OCO-3, though more observations are needed to robustly characterize the error. We highlight two examples of fusing PRISMA with OCO-2 and OCO-3 observations in South Africa and India. For India, we acquired PRISMA and OCO-3 observations on the same day and use the high spatial resolution capability of PRISMA (30 m spatial/pixel resolution) to partition relative contributions of two distinct emitting power plants to the net emission. Though an encouraging start, two years of tasking these satellites did not produce sufficient observations to estimate annual average emission rates within low (<15 %) uncertainties. However, as the constellation of CO2-observing satellites is poised to significantly improve in the coming decade, this study offers an approach to leverage multiple observation platforms to better understand large anthropogenic emission sources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.435 | 0.278 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".