MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856821798 · doi:10.1029/2008gb003404

Patterns in<i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub>in boreal streams and rivers of northern Quebec, Canada

2009· article· en· W1856821798 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cristian R. Teodoru, Paul A. del Giorgio, Yves T. Prairie, Martine Camire

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSBorealEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)TributaryWetlandSurface waterRange (aeronautics)EcologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we examine the patterns in carbon dioxide partial pressure (pCO2) measured in a number of small boreal streams (<5 km in length) in the northwestern boreal region of Québec during the ice‐free season and compare these to the patterns found in a major river (Eastmain River) and in a tributary in the same region. All systems were consistently supersaturated in CO2(range 450 to 5000μatm) streams having both higher (mean 1850μatm) and more variablepCO2than that of rivers (range 550 to 800μatm). StreampCO2was positively related to DOC concentration and stream segment length, both suggesting a direct influence of the surrounding landscape. Calculated stream water‐air CO2fluxes ranged from 700 to over 3000 mg C m−2d−1, up to 2 orders of magnitude higher than those measured in large rivers and lakes of the same region. Small streams, despite their extremely reduced areal coverage (1% of the aquatic surface), accounted for 25% of the total aquatic C emissions, and the resulting areal stream fluxes were comparable to those measured in different soils or wetlands in the region.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations189
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207