MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100820927

Greenhouse Gas Emissions at the Urban Scale TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP ESTIMATES OF GREENHOUSE

2016· article· en· W7100820927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasRadiative forcingPer capitaPopulationClimate changeGreenhouse effectGlobal warmingRange (aeronautics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2004 totaled approximately 49 Gt CO2 equivalent (CO2e)3, representing a 70 % increase since 1970 (Rogner et al. 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report concluded with “very high confi-dence ” that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has resulted in “positive ” radiative forcing (i.e. incoming energy greater than outgoing energy) of approximately 1.6 W m–2 (Solomon et al. 2007). Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 now greatly exceed their natural range over the last 650,000 years, while atmospheric CH4 and N2O greatly exceed their natural ranges over the last several thousand years (Solomon et al. 2007). More than 50 % of the world’s population now lives in urban areas. Recent bottom-up4 estimates for approximately 100 cities across the globe (Hoornweg et al. 2011) have given annual per capita GHG emissions ranging from more than 15 tons CO2e (Sydney, Calgary, Stuttgart, and several major US cities) to less than half a ton (various cities in

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate Change and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207