An Independent Evaluation of GHGSat Methane Emissions: Performance Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An independent evaluation of methane emissions data from GHGSat, a private company that operates a constellation of small microsatellites flying Fabry‐Perot spectrometers operating at 1.6 µm, was performed. Data from multiple GHGSat commercial satellites, consisting of retrieved methane, diagnostics, and, where detected, plume and emissions information from roughly 250 scenes across Canada were analyzed. From these, 10 scenes contained methane plumes with a 2% detection rate for oil and gas scenes, and 10% for landfills. Methane precision was found to be 5%/2% on average for the C1/C2–C5 designs, with some variability due to scene albedo, terrain roughness, and airmass. Synthetic GHGSat plumes, generated using Lagrangian plume dispersion model and GHGSat characteristics, indicates typical detection limits of 240/180 kg/hr(C1/C2–C5), with a best case of roughly 100 kg/hr. Emissions and their uncertainties calculated using an alternative approach were in broad agreement with GHGSat‐reported emissions. Overall, the performance of the GHGSat C2 design (also used for C3 onward) for favorable‐viewing conditions was found to be largely consistent with company‐advertised 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".