Towards understanding the contribution of permafrost waterbodies to \nmethane emissions on a regional scale using aircraft measurements and \nremote sensing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waterbodies in the arctic permafrost zone are considered a major source of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4). \nSpatial extrapolation of these CH4 fluxes to a region or the circum-Arctic, however, are still associated with large \nuncertainties. Here, we address this issue by using a combination of airborne CH 4 flux measurements and waterbody \nmapping based on TerraSAR-X and Sentinel-1 data across two study areas (1000 km2) in the Mackenzie Delta, Canada. \nOur results indicate that permafrost waterbodies, even if they seem to be strong emitters on an individual basis, do not \nnecessarily translate into significant CH 4 emission hot spots on a regional scale. Our results show inconsistent patterns \nin the correlations between waterbody types and the CH 4 flux in the two study areas and across different spatial \nresolutions. Technical advances enabling the determination of the CH4 flux of individual waterbodies across a region \nprovide a prospective direction to improve our understanding.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".