Estimating carbon accumulation rates of undrained mires in Finland–application to boreal and subarctic regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equations based on empirical relationships of peat physical properties were used to estimate the average long-term apparent rate of carbon accumulation (LORCA) in Finnish mire vegetation regions. The results were generalized to the boreal and subarctic regions. Analyses of 1302 dated peat cores were used to infer carbon accumulation for each mire vegetation region of Finland. The area-weighted LORCA for Finnish undrained mire areas was 18.5 g m 2 yr 1 and the total carbon sink 0.79 Tg yr 1 (1 Tg = 10 12 g). The total carbon pool of Finnish undrained mires was estimated as 2257 Tg. The aapa-mire region included 80% of the total net accumulation rate of carbon and 85% of the total carbon reservoirs of Finnish undrained mires. LORCA was signi” cantly higher in the raised-bog region, 26.1 g m 2 yr 1, compared with the aapa-mire region, 17.3 g m 2 yr 1, and bogs generally had a higher LORCA 20.8 g m 2 yr 1, than fens 16.9 g m 2 yr 1. The total C sink for boreal and subarctic mires was estimated at 66 Tg yr 1 which is about 31% lower than the previous estimates. The total C pool of all boreal and subarctic mires was estimated at 270–370 Pg (1 Pg = 10 15 g).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".