Nitrous Oxide Emission Prediction by Combining Process-based Models and Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".