A machine learning approach for country-level deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The suitability of countries to deploy five greenhouse gas removal technologies was investigated using hierarchical clustering machine learning. These technologies include forestation, enhanced weathering, direct air carbon capture and storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and biochar. The use of this unsupervised machine learning model greatly minimises the likelihood of human bias in the assessment of GGR technology deployment potentials and instead takes a more holistic view based on the applied data. The modelling utilised inputs of bio-geophysical and techno-economic factors of 182 countries, with the model outputs highlighting the potential performance of these GGR methods. Countries such as USA, Canada, Brazil, China, Russia, Australia as well as those within the EU and Sub-Saharan Africa were identified as key areas suitable to deploy these GGR technologies. The level of certainty of the obtained deployment suitability categorisation ranged from 65 to 98 %. While the results show the need for regional collaboration between nations, they also highlight the necessity for nations to prioritise and integrate GGR technologies in their revised nationally determined contributions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".