MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404927918 · doi:10.3390/su162310526

Towards Carbon Neutrality: Machine Learning Analysis of Vehicle Emissions in Canada

2024· article· en· W4404927918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoxu Guo, Ruibing Kou, Xiang He

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon neutralityNeutralityCarbon fibersGreenhouse gasEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceElectrical engineeringRenewable energyLawAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transportation sector is a major contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Canada, making the accurate forecasting of CO2 emissions critical as part of the global push toward carbon neutrality. This study employs interpretable machine learning techniques to predict vehicle CO2 emissions in Canada from 1995 to 2022. Algorithms including K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Regression, Gradient Boosting Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Lasso Regression were utilized. The Gradient Boosting Machine delivered the best performance, achieving the highest R-squared value (0.9973) and the lowest Root Mean Squared Error (3.3633). To enhance the model interpretability, the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Accumulated Local Effects methods were used to identify key contributing factors, including fuel consumption (city/highway), ethanol (E85), and diesel. These findings provide critical insights for policymakers, underscoring the need for promoting renewable energy, tightening fuel emission standards, and decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth to foster sustainable development. This study contributes to broader discussions on achieving carbon neutrality and the necessary transformations within the transportation sector.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207