MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413310815 · doi:10.1029/2025wr040670

Predicting Nitrous Oxide Emission From China's Waterbodies With Multiple Deep Learning Algorithms

2025· article· en· W4413310815 on OpenAlexaff
Xihua Wang, Qinya Lv, Y. Jun Xu, Rongbing Fu, Yueqing Xie, Chaomeng Dai, Nianqing Zhou, Xunming Ji, Boyang Mao, Shunqing Jia, Zejun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsNitrous oxideAlgorithmChinaEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceChemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many studies have been conducted on the prediction of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from soils. Comparably, prediction of N2O water–air emissions is much more limited, especially at the national level. Here, we collected published N2O emission data across China's watersheds and analyzed spatiotemporal patterns during dry and wet seasons. We predicted N2O emission fluxes from these waterbodies for 2026–2028 using a traditional gray prediction model (GM) coupled with several deep learning models: Long Short‐Term Memory (LSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and Bidirectional Long Short‐Term Memory (BiLSTM). The study showed large regional variation in emissions from subtropical to boreal watersheds. Average emission rates varied from 13.95 (±27.15) μg m−2 h−1 in the Yellow River Basin to 68.71 (±102.62) μg m−2 h−1 in Southwest China. N2O emissions were clearly higher in the dry season than the wet season in all regions except the Yellow River Basin, indicating strong influence from wetland vegetation. Regarding model performance, higher accuracy was achieved by GRU and BiLSTM, which successfully predicted fluctuating increases of N2O emission fluxes in most regions from 2026 to 2028, reflecting seasonal changes. While LSTM performed less accurately, GRU and BiLSTM, evolved from LSTM, may be more appropriate for complex situations. These findings provide insights into national spatiotemporal patterns of N2O emissions and can guide regional and national mitigation strategies as well as future research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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 venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207