MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416241412 · doi:10.31223/x5444j

Canada's Landfill Methane Inventories: The Challenge of Accurate Modeled and Measurement-Based Emissions

2025· article· W4416241412 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jordan Stuart, Évelise Bourlon, Rebecca Martino, Lindelwa Coyle, Susan Fraser, Emil Laurin, Felix Vogel, Sébastien Ars, David Risk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsMethaneGreenhouse gasMethane emissionsAridClimate changeClimate modelAtmospheric methaneYield (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a measurement-based assessment of methane emissions from 42 landfills across diverse climatic regions in Canada. Our findings reveal that emission rates predicted by the First-Order Decay (FOD) model used by Environment and Climate Change Canada at the visited sites are substantially higher than most measured emission rates, on average by a factor of 3, particularly for cold and arid climates typical of the Canadian prairie provinces (by a factor of 13 on average). Bias-corrected measurement rates aligned more closely with values reported to the Canadian Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Compared with the amounts estimated by the FOD model, our measurement-based estimates show greater variation with climate change. At some warmer, wetter sites, measured rates exceeded FOD-modeled estimates, underscoring the influence of climate on landfill methane dynamics and on FOD model behavior. We also found that measurement-based estimates yield more realistic methane collection effectiveness values than those implied by Canada’s FOD-based inventories. Our results suggest that the current FOD inventory model parameters—that include decay rates and oxidation assumptions—should be refined to better reflect site-specific conditions and climate variability across Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207