MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392579501 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-9675

Aerial Assessment of Methane Emissions from Canadian Landfills

2024· preprint· en· W4392579501 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donya Ghasemi, Chelsea Fougère, Afshan Khaleghi, Jordan Stuart, Rebecca Martino, Évelise Bourlon, David Risk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneMethane emissionsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasLandfill gasEnvironmental protectionGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is committed to reducing methane emissions by 50% below 2020 levels by 2030 in alignment with the Global Methane Pledge. The waste sector accounts for 23% of Canada’s methane emissions, and accurate estimations of current emissions from landfill sites are needed to guide mitigation efforts. In 2022, we conducted a cross-Canada aircraft-based methane measurement campaign in collaboration with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and the UNEP’s International Methane Emission Observatory (IMEO). We used a Twin Otter equipped with high-speed gas analyzers and meteorological measurement sensors, which was flown in ascending loops, downwind transects, or both in combination, at 27 active and inactive municipal solid waste landfills in Ontario and Québec, Canada. Mass balance flux estimates were generated using the Top-Down Emission Rate Retrieval Algorithm. Additional mass balance measurements were made by Scientific Aviation using a similar approach based on Gauss’s theorem. A Gaussian dispersion model was used at other sites where conditions were unsuitable for mass balance. We were also able to compare some results to an independent truck-based measurement campaign of the same sites. Most mass balance measurements fell within a factor of ~3 with Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data submitted by industry operators, showing reasonable correspondence within expected variability to atmospheric pressure changes and other weather variables.The research indicated that aircraft estimates were consistently higher than those derived from trucks. This implies a possible underestimation in truck measurements, particularly during sunny, low-wind conditions when the thermal lift of landfill CH4 plumes is notable. On the other hand, Gaussian dispersion model estimates were higher and more variable than mass balance-based methane emission rate estimates. We also compared our mass balance estimates to a First Order Decay landfill model used by the Environment and Climate Change Canada Waste Reduction for planning purposes, and we found that the model often overestimated emissions. These measurement-based estimates contribute to a refined understanding of methane emissions from Canadian landfills and provide valuable data for regulatory planning purposes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→