Observations of sea surface <i>f</i>CO<sub>2</sub> distributions and estimated air‐sea CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes in the Hudson Bay region (Canada) during the open water season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of baseline estimates of air‐sea CO2 exchange in Arctic and sub‐Arctic regions represents a major shortfall in our ability to understand how climate change may affect CO2 fluxes at high latitudes. The 2005 ArcticNet cruise of Hudson Bay (Canada) provided a rare comprehensive oceanographic survey of one such region. Ship‐based observations of sea‐surface fugacity of CO2 (fCO2sw) were made at 56 locations between 15 September and 26 October and were found to range from 259 μatm in Hudson Strait to 425 μatm at the entrance to James Bay. Strong relationships between fCO2sw and river discharge were identified, with coastal waters observed to be supersaturated with respect to the atmosphere, while offshore waters were undersaturated. High correlations of fCO2sw with salinity, sea surface temperature, and colored dissolved organic matter suggest that thermodynamic effects and the oxidation of riverine carbon are driving supersaturation in the coastal zone. Calculated instantaneous fluxes of CO2 ranged from +16.5 mmol m−2 d−1 in James Bay to −19.6 mmol m−2 d−1 in Foxe Channel. Using National Centers for Environmental Prediction wind speed climatologies, a net sink in Hudson Bay of −0.73 (±0.4) mmol m−2 d−1 was estimated for study period, substantially lower compared to many other Arctic shelf environments. This initial study provides a preliminary examination of fCO2sw dynamics in Hudson Bay; future analyses and field measurements will be necessary to properly constrain CO2 fluxes in this season and over an annual cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".