Estimation and Applications of Uncertainty in Methane Emissions Quantification Technologies: A Bayesian Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate understanding of uncertainty is needed to properly interpret methane emission estimates from upstream oil and gas sources in a variety of contexts, from component-level measurements to yearly jurisdiction-wide inventories. To characterize measurement uncertainty, we examine controlled release (CR) data from five different technology providers including quantitative gas imaging (QOGI), tunable diode laser-absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS); and airborne near-infrared hyperspectral (NIR HS) imaging. We introduce a novel empirical method to develop probability distributions of measurements given a true emission rate using the CR data. The approach includes flexible likelihoods which capture complex relationships in the data. An algorithm which provides the distribution of the true emission rate given a measurement is also developed, which synthesizes the measurement with the CR data and external information about the possible true emission rate. The results show that flexible models that accommodate complex nonlinear behavior are needed to adequately model measurement error. We also show that measurement error can vary under different conditions. We demonstrate that measurement uncertainty can be reduced by performing repeated measurements. A limitation of the study is that the collected CR data is collected under controlled conditions that may differ from those in industrial settings. As new CR data become available, the models presented in this paper can be refit to consider more diverse scenarios. The methodology can be extended to explicitly model different conditions to improve performance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".