MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603805 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-183

Study on the Contribution of Shale Gas Exploitation and Utilization to Carbon Emission Reduction Based on LEAP Modeling

2025· article· en· W4409603805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Oil shaleShale gasPetroleum engineeringCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceWaste managementGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development and utilization of shale gas is the main path to solve the current high carbon dioxide emissions, and this paper proposes to use the LEAP model to explore the role of shale gas development and utilization on carbon emission reduction in all aspects.Under the principle and de inition of LEAP model framework, shale gas development and utilization scenarios and parameters are determined to facilitate the research and analysis work, and in order to realize the intelligent monitoring of carbon emission reduction work, the neural network two-layer carbon emission reduction prediction model is constructed.With the support of research data and LEAP model, the relationship between shale gas development and utilization and carbon emission reduction is studied and analyzed, and the carbon pulse analysis and prediction model validation model of LEAR simulation results are also supplemented.Although all three scenarios have different contributions to carbon emission reduction, the green scenario is the most obvious means of carbon dioxide emission reduction, with a total of 52.87 from 2010 to 2050, and the prediction model in this paper is able to satisfy the current demand for carbon dioxide emission reduction work, and provide a guiding reference for urban carbon emission reduction.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207