MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415903234 · doi:10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100554

Democratizing life cycle assessment by developing a streamlined model of greenhouse gas emissions from US natural gas supply chains

2025· article· en· W4415903234 on OpenAlexafffund
Adittya Srikanth, Garvin Heath, Sarah M. Jordaan

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports Sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill UniversityNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsGreenhouse gasLife-cycle assessmentMethaneNatural gasCredibilityGlobal warmingMethane emissionsSupply chainEnergy supply

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: Natural gas (NG) supply chains contribute substantially to the global energy supply and anthropogenic methane emissions, making them frequent subjects of life cycle assessments (LCAs). To better characterize central tendencies and variability, we systematically reviewed and harmonized published estimates of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from United States NG supply chains. Results informed a streamlined LCA model (SLiNG-GHG: streamlined LCAs of NG-GHGs) that quantifies carbon dioxide and methane from three gates: transmission, distribution, and shipping. Median estimates employing harmonized emission inputs, are 10, 11, and 21 g CO2e/MJ gas (100-year global warming potentials [GWPs]), and 20, 22, and 33 g CO2e/MJ gas (20-year GWPs), delivered to each gate, respectively. Alternatively, inputting available, independent methane measurements, SLiNG-GHG estimates varied from −23% to +316% relative to baseline. Bottom-up inventories used in LCAs tend to underestimate methane compared with measurements. Results underscore the need for open-source, streamlined LCA models that can easily incorporate rapidly evolving measurements for non-experts like investors and regulators. Science for society: Natural gas is an important part of the current energy mix, yet uncertainty surrounding methane emissions is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Bottom-up inventories often underestimate emissions compared with direct measurements. This discrepancy can undermine market credibility and public trust in greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting. We address this challenge with SLiNG-GHG, a streamlined, open-source life cycle assessment model that makes emission analysis accessible to both experts and non-experts. The model development was grounded in data from a wide range of natural gas studies. We demonstrate the use of the model by integrating measurement datasets, bridging the gap between inventories and measurements. The model empowers policymakers, regulators, investors, and civilians to better evaluate natural gas emissions. The tool opens collaborative pathways across engineering, policy, and environmental science, enabling informed decision-making and better emission mitigation efforts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueCell Reports SustainabilitySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207