MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comment on egusphere-2023-1343

2024· peer-review· en· W4391139680 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsGHGSat (Canada)
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Current methods for detecting atmospheric plumes and inferring point source rates from high-resolution satellite imagery are labor intensive and not scalable to the growing satellite dataset available for methane point sources. Here we present a two-step algorithm called U-Plume for automated detection and quantification of point sources from satellite imagery. The first step delivers plume detection and delineation (masking) with a machine learning U-Net architecture for image segmentation. The second step quantifies point source rate from the masked plume using wind speed information and either a convolution neural network (CNN) or a physics-based Integrated Mass Enhancement (IME) method. The algorithm can process 62 128×128 images per second on a single core. We train the algorithm with large-eddy simulations of methane plumes superimposed on noisy and variable methane background scenes from the GHGSat-C1 satellite instrument. We introduce the concept of point source observability Ops = Q/(UWΔB) as a single dimensionless number to predict plume detectability and source rate quantification error from an instrument as a function of source rate Q, wind speed U, instrument pixel size W, and instrument-dependent background noise ΔB. We show that Ops can powerfully diagnose the ability of an imaging instrument to observe point sources of a certain magnitude under given conditions. U-Plume successfully detects and masks plumes from sources as small as 100 kg h-1 over surfaces with low background noise and succeeds for larger point sources over surfaces with substantial background noise. We find that the IME method for source quantification is unbiased over the full range of source rates while the CNN method is biased toward the mean of its training range. The total error in source rate quantification is dominated by wind speed at low wind speeds and by the masking algorithm at high wind speeds. A wind speed of 2–4 m s-1 is optimal for detection and quantification of point sources from satellite data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0190.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3600.254

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207