MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093339808 · doi:10.1029/2005gl025480

Carbon storage on exposed continental shelves during the glacial‐interglacial transition

2006· article· en· W2093339808 on OpenAlexaff
Álvaro Montenegro, Michael Eby, Jed O. Kaplan, Katrin J. Meißner, Andrew J. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinental shelfInterglacialLast Glacial MaximumEnvironmental scienceCarbon cycleClimate changeSoil carbonCarbon fibersVegetation (pathology)GeologyPhysical geographyCarbon sequestrationOceanographyGlacial periodClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesSoil scienceEcosystemCarbon dioxideGeomorphologyEcologyGeographySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present analyses of new and previously published estimates of total (vegetation plus soil) carbon storage on exposed continental shelves during the LGM. Carbon stock estimates from environmental reconstructions vary from 113 to 202 Pg C. Estimates from vegetation models range from 112 to 323 Pg C. After standardization of exposed shelf area by a topographic model the range of best estimates for reconstructions and models converge to 182–266 Pg C. Up to ∼10000 years before present, the time dependent estimate of the amount of inundated carbon is in good qualitative agreement with the increase in the atmospheric carbon reservoir. Given its relative size compared to the change in terrestrial carbon storage and the potential link between inundated carbon and atmospheric CO2 increase, the carbon stock of the LGM exposed shelves cannot be ignored and merits more detailed attention from modelling and reconstruction efforts.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→