MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Nitrous Oxide Emission Prediction by Combining Process-based Models and Neural Networks

2025· article· W4415378183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Killeen, Ci Lin, Iluju Kiringa, Tet Yeap

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasArtificial neural networkNitrous oxideWork (physics)Scale (ratio)Time horizonGlobal-warming potentialClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) that has about 273 times more global warming potential over a $\mathbf{1 0 0}$-year time horizon than carbon dioxide. Legislations put in place by nation-states are pressuring farmers to reduce their GHG emissions, but verifying whether GHG reductions strategies are working requires affordable $\mathbf{N}_{2} \mathbf{O}$ emission sensing/estimation. Process-based models and data-driven models can be combined to offer an affordable $\mathbf{N}_{2} \mathbf{O}$ sensing solution for making reasonably accurate estimates. In the present work we gathered soil, weather, and N2O emissions data using infield sensors from a test plot at a Canadian smart farm during the 2021, 2022, and 2024 growing seasons. We performed N2O prediction experiments that involved predicting 2022 emissions by using models trained using 2024 and/or 2021 data. We compared the hybrid long short-term memory (LSTM) - Dynamic Land Ecosystem Model (DLEM) model (LSTM-DLEM) to other datadriven models. When using only 2021 training data, LSTMDLEM was the best performing model, achieving $0.39 \mathbf{R}^{2}$. When using different features and including 2024 training data, LSTM was the best performing model, achieving $0.40 \mathrm{R}^{2}$, and LSTMDLEM did poorly, although LSTM-DLEM was the only model that best captured the large scale of the emissions at the very start of the season. Our results show that the idea of combining data-driven models with process-based models has the potential to improve $\mathbf{N}_{2} \mathbf{O}$ emission prediction model 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 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)0.002
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and Applications→French-language works237,207→