MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methods for biogeochemical studies of sea ice: The state of the art, caveats, and recommendations

2015· article· en· W2025002914 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

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryUniversité du Québec à RimouskiFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBiogeochemical cycleEnvironmental scienceSea iceBiogeochemistryEarth system scienceEarth scienceOceanographyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the past two decades, with recognition that the ocean’s sea-ice cover is neither insensitive to climate change nor a barrier to light and matter, research in sea-ice biogeochemistry has accelerated significantly, bringing together a multi-disciplinary community from a variety of fields. This disciplinary diversity has contributed a wide range of methodological techniques and approaches to sea-ice studies, complicating comparisons of the results and the development of conceptual and numerical models to describe the important biogeochemical processes occurring in sea ice. Almost all chemical elements, compounds, and biogeochemical processes relevant to Earth system science are measured in sea ice, with published methods available for determining biomass, pigments, net community production, primary production, bacterial activity, macronutrients, numerous natural and anthropogenic organic compounds, trace elements, reactive and inert gases, sulfur species, the carbon dioxide system parameters, stable isotopes, and water-ice-atmosphere fluxes of gases, liquids, and solids. For most of these measurements, multiple sampling and processing techniques are available, but to date there has been little intercomparison or intercalibration between methods. In addition, researchers collect different types of ancillary data and document their samples differently, further confounding comparisons between studies. These problems are compounded by the heterogeneity of sea ice, in which even adjacent cores can have dramatically different biogeochemical compositions. We recommend that, in future investigations, researchers design their programs based on nested sampling patterns, collect a core suite of ancillary measurements, and employ a standard approach for sample identification and documentation. In addition, intercalibration exercises are most critically needed for measurements of biomass, primary production, nutrients, dissolved and particulate organic matter (including exopolymers), the CO2 system, air-ice gas fluxes, and aerosol production. We also encourage the development of in situ probes robust enough for long-term deployment in sea ice, particularly for biological parameters, the CO2 system, and other gases.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.321 · 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