MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406857753 · doi:10.1029/2024jd042333

Quantifying CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions From Smaller Anthropogenic Point Sources Using OCO‐2 Target and OCO‐3 Snapshot Area Mapping Mode Observations

2025· article· en· W4406857753 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Omid Moeini, Ray Nassar, Jon‐Paul Mastrogiacomo, Megan Dawson, C. O’Dell, Robert Nelson, Abhishek Chatterjee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Environmental scienceRemote sensingComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We quantify CO 2 emissions from smaller anthropogenic point sources compared with earlier satellite studies, which have mostly focused on mid‐sized (∼10 MtCO 2 /year) and larger fossil fuel burning power plants. Two types of Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) observation modes are used: OCO‐2 Target mode and OCO‐3 Snapshot Area Mapping (SAM) mode. Methods previously used with OCO‐3 SAMs are adapted to quantify CO 2 emissions with OCO‐2 Targets for the first time, demonstrating a similar capability to track emission changes at the Bełchatów Power Station. SAMs and Targets are then applied to quantify emissions from smaller sources in Canada: the Boundary Dam and Poplar River Power Stations in Saskatchewan, and the Suncor and Syncrude Mildred Lake mined oil sands processing facilities in northern Alberta. We verify our method on the nearby Colstrip Power Station in Montana by comparison with hourly reported values. For Canadian sources, only annual emissions are reported, to which our emission estimates cannot be directly compared. Emissions derived from a single satellite overpass correspond to daily or finer temporal scales and thus do not account for source intermittency or variability, which requires multiple revisits to reliably estimate annual emissions. Finally, we average OCO‐3 SAMs on repeated revisits to improve weak enhancement signals above background noise. Averaging SAMs yields mixed results, with improvements achieved only under certain conditions. These studies help to clarify the capabilities and limitations of CO 2 point source emission quantification with current satellites in advance of plans for operational monitoring with future CO 2 satellite missions.

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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→