Correction factors for large-scale greenhouse gas assessment from pulp and paper mill sludge landfill sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in managed areas are facing various challenges. A non-flow-through, non-steady-state (NFT-NSS) chamber coupled to a frame permanently inserted into the landfilled substrates is a standard method for quantifying GHG emissions in managed areas, such as pulp and paper mill sludge (PPMS) landfill sites. Frequent measurements are needed to minimize uncertainties on GHG emission factors at the landfill site scale. However, maintaining a frame inserted into the substrates for a long time period is often impossible due to landfilling management operations. Therefore, GHG measurements using NFT-NSS chambers placed directly on substrates’ surface could be an interesting option. Our objectives were to determine the relationships between CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes measured with (F + ) and without (F-) a frame inserted in the substrates’ surface and to develop correction factors for fluxes measured without a frame. Measurements were made at different PPMS landfill sites in the province of Québec, Canada. Stronger GHG flux relationships were observed at the provincial (across sites) than the specific site scale: the variance in GHG fluxes from F- chambers explained up to 80 % of variance in fluxes from F + chambers. The measured CO2, CH4, and N2O fluxes in F- chambers were on average 53, 78, and 63 % lower, respectively, than those estimated by the models at provincial scale. The correction factors developed with this approach could greatly extend the number of sites where in situ GHG measurements can be done and would help refining GHG inventories at the provincial and national levels.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".