MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973727182 · doi:10.1029/2011eo460001

Ocean deoxygenation: Past, present, and future

2011· article· en· W1973727182 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNASA Astrobiology Institute
KeywordsOcean heat contentOceanographyEnvironmental scienceLatitudeClimate changeStratification (seeds)OxygenOcean currentGeologyChemistryBiologyDormancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To a first order, the oxygen content of the ocean interior is determined by the influx of the gas across the air‐sea surface (i.e., ventilation) and consumption due primarily to microbial respiration. As these two competing processes vary in space and time, so does the concentration of oxygen in the ocean interior. Although oxygen concentrations on continental margins are declining in many regions due to increased anthropogenic nutrient loadings [e.g., Rabalais et al. , 2002], oxygen also appears to be declining in both the central North Pacific Ocean and the tropical oceans worldwide [ Emerson et al. , 2004; Whitney et al. , 2007; Keeling et al. , 2010] (see Figure 1). It is unclear whether the loss throughout the basins in the open ocean is a long‐term, nonperiodic (secular) trend related to climate change, the result of natural cyclical processes, or a combination of both (Figure 2). If related to climate change, a number of important factors may be involved, including decreased solubility of oxygen as waters warm, decreased ventilation at high latitudes associated with increased ocean stratification, and changes in respiration in the ocean interior.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.161 · 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