MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394923063 · doi:10.31857/s2587556623040131

Comparative Analysis and Assessment of Methodologies Applied in the Russian Federation for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Absorption by Forest Ecosystems

2023· article· en· W4394923063 on OpenAlex
D. D. Sorokina, А. В. Птичников, A. A. Romanovskaya

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIzvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk Seriya Geograficheskaya · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasRussian federationEnvironmental scienceEcosystemForest ecologyAbsorption (acoustics)Environmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeographyRegional sciencePhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of the forest carbon balance is of great importance for the building of the climate policy of the Russian Federation at both national and international levels. At the same time, the results of such assessments conducted by different scientific groups vary depending on the approaches and methodologies used. This study considers the key systems for assessing the carbon balance of forest ecosystems in the Russian Federation: Integrated Land Information System, IZIS (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria), The Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector, CBM-CFS (Canada), Regional Forest Carbon Budget Assessment, ROBUL (Russia), the methodology of the All-Russian Research Institute of Forestry and Mechanization of Forestry (Russia). The methodologies are compared with respect to their compliance with the IPCC requirements. The study identifies the individual characteristics of the methodologies and their application, and proposes recommendations for improving the accuracy of carbon balance estimates. The main key differences between the estimates of different scientific groups, include: compliance with the recommendations of IPCC; selection between the methods of “gain−loss” and “stock−difference”; approach to the identification of managed forests; calculation method of forest fire emissions; sources of initial data, and their reliability. The study notes the importance of scientific discussion and the necessity of compliance of the methodologies with international standards, emphasizes the problem of outdated initial data and underestimation of forest fire emissions, regardless of the chosen methodology. In general, the currently used methodology satisfactorily estimates forest carbon balance. It is recommended to improve the estimates based on remote sensing data and the second cycle of the State Forest Inventory (SFI). The implementation of the Strategy of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation with low greenhouse gas emissions until 2050 should be provided not only by changes in the method of calculating the carbon balance, but rather through real forest protection measures. Any significant adjustment to the methodology must be accompanied by an adjustment to national climate goals.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.279 · 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