MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100195673 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044016

The greenhouse gas flux and potential global warming feedbacks of a northern macrotidal and microtidal salt marsh

2011· article· en· W2100195673 on OpenAlexaff
Gail L. Chmura, Lisa Kellman, Glenn R. Guntenspergen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandEnvironmental scienceSalt marshMarshGreenhouse gasHydrology (agriculture)Brackish marshAtmospheric sciencesFlux (metallurgy)Radiative forcingClimate changeOceanographyEcologyGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversion of wetlands by drainage for agriculture or other anthropogenic activities could have a negative or positive feedback to global warming (GWF). We suggest that a major predictor of the GWF is salinity of the wetland soil (a proxy for available sulfate), a factor often ignored in other studies. We assess the radiative balance of two northern salt marshes with average soil salinities > 20 ppt, but with high (macro-) and low (micro-) tidal amplitudes. The flux of greenhouse gases from soils at the end of the growing season averaged 485 ± 253 mg m − 2 h − 1, 13 ± 30 µg m − 2 h − 1, and 19 ± 58 µg m − 2 h − 1 in the microtidal marsh and 398 ± 201 mg m − 2 h − 1, 2 ± 26 µg m − 2 h − 1, and 35 ± 77 µg m − 2 h − 1 in the macrotidal marsh for CO2, N2O, and CH4, respectively. High rates of C sequestration mean that loss of these marshes would have a radiative balance of − 981 CO2_eq. m − 2 yr − 1 in the microtidal and − 567 CO2_eq. m − 2 yr − 1 in the macrotidal marsh.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations73
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207