MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from Irish peatlands

2023· article· en· W4416116091 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elena Aitova, Terry Morley, David Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueMires and Peat · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInterregNational Parks and Wildlife ServiceCanadian Sphagnum Peat Moss AssociationStrong
KeywordsPeatGreenhouse gasNitrous oxideSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)Carbon fibersCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since peatlands cover around 20 % of the land area in the Republic of Ireland, their management is of particular significance in reducing national greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. We reviewed peatland carbon (C) flux studies within Ireland, extracting data for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide fluxes, as well as fluvial losses and here propose preliminary country-specific emission factors (EFs) for various peatland land uses and management practices. Using our derived EFs and latest areal estimates, national emissions from peatlands (excluding horticulture and combustion) amount to 1.9 Mt C y-¹ (± 0.4–3.4 Mt C y-¹), with more than half of all peatland GHG emissions coming from grasslands on organic soils and over one-third from domestic extraction drained peatlands. Our analyses suggest that peatland management through rewetting and restoration has the potential to substantially reduce emissions from drained peatlands, and this article attempts to quantify this reduction. This is critically important given the large areas of degraded peatlands that have been earmarked for rewetting in the next decade.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMires and PeatSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207