MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385584274 · doi:10.1080/01431161.2023.2240028

Estimating ground-level CH<sub>4</sub> concentrations inferred from Sentinel-5P

2023· article· en· W4385584274 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jianen Qin, Xiuying Zhang, Lei Liu, Kai Qin, Xiaoyong Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Remote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaBasic Research Program of Jiangsu ProvinceMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSatelliteGreenhouse gasCorrelation coefficientAtmospheric sciencesGround levelMethaneChristian ministryMeteorologyGeographyGeologyChemistryStatisticsGround floorMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas; however, there is a lack of large-scale studies on ground-level CH4 concentrations. We estimated global ground-level CH4 concentrations based on the CH4 columns from the Copernicus Sentinel-5 precursor satellite (S5P) and vertical profiles of CH4 concentrations simulated from the Atmospheric Chemical Transport Model (GEOS-Chem). The proposed approach had achieved a high predictive accuracy for monthly ground-level CH4 concentrations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.93 (p < 0.01) and RMSE of 29.93 ppb between the estimated CH4 concentrations and those of ground measurements from the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG). Compared with the S5P CH4 columns, the estimated ground-level CH4 concentration has a close spatial relationship with emissions. The high CH4 concentrations occurred in eastern China, northern India, western Russia, eastern U.S., and central Europe. Furthermore, the estimated ground-level CH4 concentrations could reflect the seasonal variations of the observations, with correlation coefficients from 0.14 to 0.92. Our findings highlight the importance of satellite observations on atmospheric CH4 in understanding the spatial and temporal 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Remote SensingSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207