MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2053358409 · doi:10.1029/2001gl013812

methyl bromide loss rate constants in the north Pacific Ocean

2001· article· en· W2053358409 on OpenAlexaff
Ryszard Tokarczyk, Kelly D. Goodwin, E. S. Saltzman

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeawaterReaction rate constantBromideSubtropicsDegradation (telecommunications)Environmental chemistrySurface waterChemistryOceanographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyKineticsEcologyBiologyInorganic chemistryEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degradation rate constant of CH3Br in the North Pacific Ocean was measured in surface seawater between September and October 1999, using a stable isotope (13CH3Br) incubation technique. Total degradation rate constants ranged from 0.02 to 0.43 d−1, decreasing in colder waters as a result of the temperature‐dependence of chemical losses. Biological rate constants ranged from 0.01 to 0.20 d−1. In subtropical waters (13‐20°N), biological loss rate constants were small compared to chemical loss rate constants. North of Hawaii, biological processes played an increasingly significant role in CH3Br degradation. In subpolar waters (40‐58°N), biological losses dominated the removal of methyl bromide. Comparison of the measured loss rate constants with surface water CH3Br concentrations suggest that the CH3Br production rate is higher in warm, low latitude waters than in cold subpolar waters at this time of year. Diel studies revealed a midday maximum in biological degradation of methyl bromide.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→