MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417251548 · doi:10.1126/science.adv3183

Global energy sector methane emissions estimated by using facility-level satellite observations

2025· article· en· W4417251548 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Jervis, Marianne Girard, Jean-Philippe W. MacLean, David B. Marshall, Jason McKeever, Mathias Strupler, Antoine Ramier, Ewan Tarrant, Joannes D. Maasakkers, Ilse Aben, Tia R. Scarpelli

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGHGSat (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneGreenhouse gasSatelliteFossil fuelTonneAtmospheric methaneMethane emissionsSpatial variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane emissions from energy sector facilities (oil, gas, and coal) represent a substantial contribution to greenhouse gas emissions with substantial mitigation potential. We estimated global 2023 methane emissions from energy sector point sources using the high spatial resolution GHGSat satellite constellation. GHGSat detected 8.30 [Formula: see text] 0.24 million tonnes per year of methane emissions from 3114 emission sites. Detected oil and gas- and coal-emitting sites were found to be emitting 16 and 48% of the time, respectively, above GHGSat's detection limit without obvious continental variation. Compared with the Global Fuel Exploitation Inventory (GFEIv3) estimate, GHGSat's estimate comprises 12% of GFEIv3's total emissions, or 24% over GHGsat-observed locations, with good spatial correlation at the country scale but only weak spatial correlation at 0.2°-×-0.2° grid cell scale.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→