CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Atmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsSpectroscopy and Laser Applications

Dairy Methane Emissions in California's San Joaquin Valley Inferred With Ground‐Based Remote Sensing Observations in the Summer and Winter

Open access
Heerah, Sajjan, Frausto‐Vicencio, Isis, Jeong, Seongeun, Marklein, Alison R., Ding, Yifan, Meyer, Aaron G., Parker, Harrison A., Fischer, Marc L. +3 more·2021·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
DOI 10.1029/2021jd034785
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The dairy industry in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) is one of California’s largest methane (CH 4) sources. Reducing dairy emissions is a priority for the state’s climate change plans. Observations of current dairy CH 4 emissions are key to monitoring actions taken toward this goal. To help support this, we present new ground‐based measurements of atmospheric column‐averaged CH 4 mixing ratio (XCH 4) gradients across a group of 600 dairies in the central SJV using EM27/SUN solar spectrometers. We used measurements from the 2019 summer and 2020 winter seasons for a top‐down emission inversion based on the WRF‐STILT model. Our top‐down estimates of the region’s dairy emissions range from 90% to 183% of the current CALGEM inventory’s emissions of 277 Gg/yr. In contrast to the strong temperature dependence found by earlier dairy CH 4 emission studies, we also find that our top‐down emissions during the winter measurement days are comparable to the summer measurement days, possibly due to seasonal changes in dairy management practices and meteorological conditions. Furthermore, we find significant interday variability in our measurements and find that our emission estimates overlap with earlier top‐down studies and bottom‐up inventories in this region. Our study demonstrates how analysis of ground‐based remotely sensed CH 4 gradient observations can help improve our understanding of CH 4 sources at scales relevant to mitigation policy. It also reflects the need for long‐term monitoring of CH 4 emissions in the region and at individual facilities to better understand their emissions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2021jd034785

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Arndt, C., Leytem, A., Hristov, A., Zavala-Araiza, D., Cativiela, J., Conley, S., et al. (2018). Short-term methane emissions from 2 dairy farms in California estimated by different measurement techniques and US Environmental Protection Agency inventory methodology: A case study. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(12), 11461-11479. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13881 · DOI
  2. Bagley, J. E., Jeong, S., Cui, X., Newman, S., Zhang, J., Priest, C., et al. (2017). Assessment of an atmospheric transport model for annual inverse estimates of California greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(3), 1901-1918. https://doi. org/10.1002/2016jd025361 · DOI
  3. Cui, Y. Y., Brioude, J., Angevine, W. M., Peischl, J., McKeen, S. A., Kim, S.-W., et al. (2017). Top-down estimate of methane emissions in California using a mesoscale inverse modeling technique: The San Joaquin Valley. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(6), 3686-3699. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd026398 · DOI
  4. Cui, Y. Y., Vijayan, A., Falk, M., Hsu, Y.-K., Yin, D., Chen, X. M., et al. (2019). A multiplatform inversion estimation of statewide and regional methane emissions in California during 2014-2016. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(16), 9636-9645. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. est.9b01769 · DOI
  5. Dlugokencky, E. J., Nisbet, E. G., Fisher, R., & Lowry, D. (2011). Global atmospheric methane: Budget, changes and dangers. Philosophi- cal Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences, 369(1943), 2058-2072. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsta.2010.0341 · DOI
  6. Duren, R. M., Thorpe, A. K., Foster, K. T., Rafiq, T., Hopkins, F. M., Yadav, V., et al. (2019). California's methane super-emitters. Nature, 575(7781), 180-184. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1720-3 · DOI
  7. Etminan, M., Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J., & Shine, K. P. (2016). Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(24), 12614-12623. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl071930 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Fasoli, B., Lin, J. C., Bowling, D. R., Mitchell, L., & Mendoza, D. (2018). Simulating atmospheric tracer concentrations for spatially distributed receptors: Updates to the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport model's R interface (STILT-R version 2). Geoscientific Model De- velopment, 11(7), 2813-2824. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2813-2018 · DOI
  9. Fiore, A. M., West, J. J., Horowitz, L. W., Naik, V., & Schwarzkopf, M. D. (2008). Characterizing the tropospheric ozone response to methane emission controls and the benefits to climate and air quality. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113(D8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd009162 · DOI
  10. Gisi, M., Hase, F., Dohe, S., Blumenstock, T., Simon, A., & Keens, A. (2012). XCO2 measurements with a tabletop FTS using solar absorption spectroscopy. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 5(11), 2969-2980. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-2969-2012 · DOI
  11. Grant, R. H., Boehm, M. T., & Bogan, B. W. (2015). Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from manure storage facilities at two free-stall dair- ies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 213, 102-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.06.008 · DOI
  12. Hase, F., Frey, M., Blumenstock, T., Groß, J., Kiel, M., Kohlhepp, R., et al. (2015). Application of portable FTIR spectrometers for detect- ing greenhouse gas emissions of the major city Berlin. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 8(7), 3059-3068. https://doi.org/10.5194/ amt-8-3059-2015 · DOI
  13. Hedelius, J. K., Feng, S., Roehl, C. M., Wunch, D., Hillyard, P. W., Podolske, J. R., et al. (2017). Emissions and topographic effects on column CO2 (XCO2) variations, with a focus on the Southern California megacity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 122(13), 7200- 7215. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd026455 · DOI
  14. Hedelius, J. K., Liu, J., Oda, T., Maksyutov, S., Roehl, C. M., Iraci, L. T., et al. (2018). Southern California megacity CO2, CH4, and CO flux estimates using ground-and space-based remote sensing and a Lagrangian model. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(22), 16271-16291. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16271-2018 · DOI
  15. Hedelius, J. K., Viatte, C., Wunch, D., Roehl, C. M., Toon, G. C., Chen, J., et al. (2016). Assessment of errors and biases in retrievals of XCO2, XCH4, XCO, and XN2O from a 0.5 cm-1 resolution solar-viewing spectrometer. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(8), 3527-3546. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3527-2016 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Husted, S. (1994). Seasonal variation in methane emission from stored slurry and solid manures. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(3), 585-592. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300030026x · DOI
  17. Inness, A., Ades, M., Agustí-Panareda, A., Barré, J., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., et al. (2019). The CAMS reanalysis of atmospheric composition. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(6), 3515-3556. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019 · DOI
  18. Jeong, S., Hsu, Y.-K., Andrews, A. E., Bianco, L., Vaca, P., Wilczak, J. M., & Fischer, M. L. (2013). A multitower measurement network estimate of California's methane emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(19), 11339-11351. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50854 · DOI
  19. Jeong, S., Newman, S., Zhang, J., Andrews, A. E., Bianco, L., Bagley, J., et al. (2016). Estimating methane emissions in California's urban and rural regions using multitower observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 121(21), 13031-13049. https://doi. org/10.1002/2016jd025404 · DOI
  20. Johnson, M. S., Xi, X., Jeong, S., Yates, E. L., Iraci, L. T., Tanaka, T., et al. (2016). Investigating seasonal methane emissions in Northern Cal- ifornia using airborne measurements and inverse modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 121(22), 13753-13813. https:// doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025157 · DOI
  21. Jones, T. S., Franklin, J. E., Chen, J., Dietrich, F., Hajny, K. D., Paetzold, J. C., et al. (2021). Assessing urban methane emissions using column observing portable FTIR spectrometers and a novel Bayesian inversion framework. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 21(17), 13131-13147. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-1262 · DOI
  22. Keppel-Aleks, G., Wennberg, P. O., & Schneider, T. (2011). Sources of variations in total column carbon dioxide. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(8), 3581-3593. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3581-2011 · DOI
  23. Kille, N., Chiu, R., Frey, M., Hase, F., Sha, M. K., Blumenstock, T., et al. (2019). Separation of methane emissions from agricultural and natural gas sources in the Colorado Front Range. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(7), 3990-3998. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl082132 · DOI
  24. Kort, E. A., Frankenberg, C., Costigan, K. R., Lindenmaier, R., Dubey, M. K., & Wunch, D. (2014). Four corners: The largest US methane anom- aly viewed from space. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(19), 6898-6903. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061503 · DOI
  25. Lauvaux, T., & Davis, K. J. (2014). Planetary boundary layer errors in mesoscale inversions of column-integrated CO 2 measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(2), 490-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jd020175 · DOI
  26. Leytem, A., Bjorneberg, D., Koehn, A., Moraes, L., Kebreab, E., & Dungan, R. (2017). Methane emissions from dairy lagoons in the western United States. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(8), 6785-6803. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12777 · DOI
  27. Lin, J. C. (2003). A near-field tool for simulating the upstream influence of atmospheric observations: The stochastic time-inverted Lagrangian transport (stilt) model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(D16), ACH 2-1-ACH 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003161 · DOI
  28. Lin, J. C. (2005). Accounting for the effect of transport errors on tracer inversions. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(1). https://doi. org/10.1029/2004gl021127 · DOI
  29. Luther, A., Kleinschek, R., Scheidweiler, L., Defratyka, S., Stanisavljevic, M., Forstmaier, A., et al. (2019). Quantifying CH 4 emissions from hard coal mines using mobile sun-viewing Fourier transform spectrometry. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 12(10), 5217-5230. https://doi. org/10.5194/amt-12-5217-2019 · DOI
  30. Maasakkers, J. D., Jacob, D. J., Sulprizio, M. P., Turner, A. J., Weitz, M., Wirth, T., et al. (2016). Gridded national inventory of U.S. methane emissions. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(23), 13123-13133. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02878 · DOI
  31. Makarova, M. V., Alberti, C., Ionov, D. V., Hase, F., Foka, S. C., Blumenstock, T., et al. (2021). Emission monitoring mobile experiment (EMME): An overview and first results of the St. Petersburg Megacity Campaign 2019. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 14(2), 1047- 1073. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-1047-2021 · DOI
  32. Marklein, A. R., Meyer, D., Fischer, M. L., Jeong, S., Rafiq, T., Carr, M., & Hopkins, F. M. (2020). Facility scale inventory of dairy methane emissions in California: Implications for mitigation. Earth System Science Data, 13(3), 1151-1166. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-133 · DOI
  33. McKain, K., Wofsy, S. C., Nehrkorn, T., Eluszkiewicz, J., Ehleringer, J. R., & Stephens, B. B. (2012). Assessment of ground-based atmospheric observations for verification of greenhouse gas emissions from an urban region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(22), 8423-8428. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116645109 · DOI
  34. Meyer, D., Price, P., Rossow, H., del Rio, N. S., Karle, B., Robinson, P., et al. (2011). Survey of dairy housing and manure management practices in California. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(9), 4744-4750. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3761 · DOI
  35. Miller, S. M., Wofsy, S. C., Michalak, A. M., Kort, E. A., Andrews, A. E., Biraud, S. C., et al. (2013). Anthropogenic emissions of meth- ane in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(50), 20018-20022. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314392110 · DOI
  36. Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., & Zhang, H. (2013). Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 659-740). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from www.climatechange2013.org
  37. Petersen, S. O. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions from liquid dairy manure: Prediction and mitigation. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(7), 6642- 6654. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13301 · DOI
  38. Rodgers, C. D. (2000). Inverse methods for atmospheric sounding: Theory and practice. World Scientific.
  39. Safley, L., & Westerman, P. (1988). Biogas production from anaerobic lagoons. Biological Wastes, 23(3), 181-193. https://doi. org/10.1016/0269-7483(88)90033-x · DOI
  40. Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B., Peregon, A., Ciais, P., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2016). The global methane budget 2000-2012. Earth System Science Data, 8(2), 697-751. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016 · DOI
  41. Schwandner, F. M., Gunson, M. R., Miller, C. E., Carn, S. A., Eldering, A., Krings, T., et al. (2017). Spaceborne detection of localized carbon dioxide sources. Science, 358(6360), eaam5782. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5782 · DOI
  42. Shekhar, A., Chen, J., Paetzold, J. C., Dietrich, F., Zhao, X., Bhattacharjee, S., et al. (2020). Anthropogenic CO 2 emissions assessment of Nile delta using XCO 2 and SIF data from OCO-2 satellite. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 095010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9cfe · DOI
  43. Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D., Duda, M. G., et al. (2008). A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3 (No. NCAR/TN-475+STR). University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH · DOI
  44. Trousdell, J. F., Conley, S. A., Post, A., & Faloona, I. C. (2016). Observing entrainment mixing, photochemical ozone production, and regional methane emissions by aircraft using a simple mixed-layer framework. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16(24), 15433-15450. https://doi. org/10.5194/acp-16-15433-2016 · DOI
  45. Turner, A. J., Jacob, D. J., Wecht, K. J., Maasakkers, J. D., Lundgren, E., Andrews, A. E., et al. (2015). Estimating global and North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution using GOSAT satellite data. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15(12), 7049-7069.
  46. VanderZaag, A., Flesch, T., Desjardins, R., Baldé, H., & Wright, T. (2014). Measuring methane emissions from two dairy farms: Seasonal and manure-management effects. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 194, 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.02.003 · DOI
  47. Vaughn, T. L., Bell, C. S., Pickering, C. K., Schwietzke, S., Heath, G. A., Pétron, G., et al. (2018). Temporal variability largely explains top-down/ bottom-up difference in methane emission estimates from a natural gas production region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(46), 11712-11717. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805687115 · DOI
  48. Viatte, C., Lauvaux, T., Hedelius, J. K., Parker, H., Chen, J., Jones, T., et al. (2017). Methane emissions from dairies in the Los Angeles Basin. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(12), 7509-7528. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7509-2017 · DOI
  49. Vogel, F. R., Frey, M., Staufer, J., Hase, F., Broquet, G., Xueref-Remy, I., et al. (2019). XCO 2 in an emission hot-spot region: The COCCON Paris campaign 2015. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(5), 3271-3285. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3271-2019 · DOI
  50. Wecht, K. J., Jacob, D. J., Frankenberg, C., Jiang, Z., & Blake, D. R. (2014). Mapping of North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(12), 7741-7756. https://doi. org/10.1002/2014jd021551 · DOI
  51. Wecht, K. J., Jacob, D. J., Sulprizio, M. P., Santoni, G. W., Wofsy, S. C., Parker, R., et al. (2014). Spatially resolving methane emissions in California: Constraints from the CalNex aircraft campaign and from present (GOSAT, TES) and future (TROPOMI, geostationary) satellite observations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(15), 8173-8184. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8173-2014 · DOI
  52. Wood, J. D., Gordon, R. J., & Wagner-Riddle, C. (2013). Biases in discrete CH 4 and N 2 O sampling protocols associated with temporal var- iation of gas fluxes from manure storage systems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 171-172, 295-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agrformet.2012.12.014 · DOI
  53. Wu, D., Lin, J. C., Fasoli, B., Oda, T., Ye, X., Lauvaux, T., et al. (2018). A Lagrangian approach towards extracting signals of urban CO 2 emis- sions from satellite observations of atmospheric column CO 2 (XCO 2 ): X-Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport model ("X-STILT v1"). Geoscientific Model Development, 11(12), 4843-4871. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4843-2018 · DOI
  54. Wu, D., Lin, J. C., Oda, T., & Kort, E. A. (2020). Space-based quantification of per capita CO 2 emissions from cities. Environmental Research Letters, 15(3), 035004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab68eb · DOI
  55. Wunch, D., Jones, D. B. A., Toon, G. C., Deutscher, N. M., Hase, F., Notholt, J., et al. (2019). Emissions of methane in Europe inferred by total column measurements. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(6), 3963-3980. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3963-2019 · DOI
  56. Wunch, D., Wennberg, P. O., Toon, G. C., Keppel-Aleks, G., & Yavin, Y. G. (2009). Emissions of greenhouse gases from a North American megacity. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(15). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009gl039825 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Ye, X., Lauvaux, T., Kort, E. A., Oda, T., Feng, S., Lin, J. C., et al. (2020). Constraining fossil fuel CO 2 emissions from urban area using OCO-2 observations of total column CO 2 . Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd030528 · DOI
  58. Zhang, Y., Gautam, R., Pandey, S., Omara, M., Maasakkers, J. D., Sadavarte, P., et al. (2020). Quantifying methane emissions from the largest oil-producing basin in the United States from space. Science Advances, 6(17), eaaz5120. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv. · DOI
  59. aaz5120 · DOI
  60. Zhao, X., Marshall, J., Hachinger, S., Gerbig, C., Frey, M., Hase, F., & Chen, J. (2019). Analysis of total column CO 2 and CH 4 measurements in Berlin with WRF-GHG. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(17), 11279-11302. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11279-2019 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heerah, S., Frausto‐Vicencio, I., Jeong, S., Marklein, A. R., Ding, Y., Meyer, A. G., Parker, H. A., Fischer, M. L., Franklin, J. E., Hopkins, F. M., & Dubey, M.
Affiliations
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Heerah, Sajjan
  • Dubey, Manvendra
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
2021-12-10
Volume
126
Issue
24
ISSN
  • 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-897X
  • 2169-8996
DOI
10.1029/2021jd034785
OpenAlex
W3212591557
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of the President, University of California (LFR‐18‐548581)
  • Department of Energy (DE‐AC02‐05CH11231)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Spectroscopy and Laser Applications
Keywords
top-down emission estimates, emission inversion, WRF-STILT, seasonal variation, temperature-dependent emission, dairy farm management, San Joaquin Valley

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review