MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089378107 · doi:10.1029/2011jc007751

Hypoxia in the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary: How physics controls spatial patterns

2012· article· en· W2089378107 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stelly Lefort, Yves Gratton, Alfonso Mucci, Isabelle Dadou, Denis Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMcGill University
FundersUniversité Toulouse III - Paul SabatierUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsWater columnAdvectionBiogeochemical cycleEstuaryOceanographySpatial distributionHypoxia (environmental)Environmental scienceDeep waterHydrology (agriculture)OxygenGeologyAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A laterally integrated advection‐diffusion two‐dimensional model was implemented to simulate the spatial distribution of dissolved oxygen and the development of hypoxic conditions in the deep waters of the Laurentian Channel (Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence, Eastern Canada). Our simulations reveal that the horizontal distribution of dissolved oxygen in the bottom waters of the Laurentian Channel is determined by a combination of physical and biogeochemical processes, whereas its vertical distribution is governed by the deep water circulation. This result strongly suggests that the physics of the system and the source water properties are mostly responsible for the generation of a mid‐water column oxygen minimum and the oxygen distribution pattern in the deep water column.

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)0.000
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 score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations63
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207