Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Open straw burning has been widely recognized as a significant source of greenhouse gases (GHGs), posing critical risks to atmospheric integrity and potentially exacerbating global warming. In this study, we proposed a novel method that integrates crop cycle information into extraction and classification of fire spots from open straw burning in Northeast China from 2001 to 2020. By synergizing the extracted fire spots with the modified Fire Radiative Power (FRP) algorithm, we developed high spatial resolution emission inventories of GHGs, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Results showed that the northern Sanjiang Plain, eastern Songnen Plain, and eastern Liao River Plain were areas with high intensity of open straw burning. The number of fire spots was elevated during 2013–2017, accounting for 58.0 % of the total fire spots observed during 2001–2020. The prevalent season for open straw burning shifted from autumn (pre-2016) to spring (post-2016), accompanied by a more dispersed pattern in burning dates. The two-decade cumulative emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were quantified at 202 Tg, 568 Gg, and 16.0 Gg, respectively, amounting to 221 Tg of CO2-eq. Significant correlations were identified between GHGs emissions and both straw yields and straw utilization (p < 0.01). The enforcement of straw burning bans since 2018 has played a pivotal role in curbing open straw burning, and reduced fire spots by 50.7 % on annual basis compared to 2013–2017. The novel method proposed in this study considerably enhanced the accuracy in characterizing spatiotemporal distributions of fire spots from open straw burning and quantifying associated pollutants emissions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.421 | 0.266 |
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".