MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106394360 · doi:10.1029/2005jd006581

Variations and sources of the equivalent black carbon in the high Arctic revealed by long‐term observations at Alert and Barrow: 1989–2003

2006· article· en· W2106394360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sangeeta Sharma, Elisabeth Andrews, L. A. Barrie, J. A. Ogren, D. Lavoué

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAethalometerEnvironmental scienceArcticClimatologyArctic oscillationThe arcticTrend analysisAtmospheric sciencesOceanographyCarbon blackGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen years of “equivalent” black carbon (EBC) measurements (derived from aethalometer measurements of light absorption) made at Alert in Nunavut, Canada, and Point Barrow in Alaska, United States, were compared for the long‐term trends and seasonal cycle. Over the 15‐year period from 1989 to 2003, the results revealed a downward trend in EBC concentrations by as much as 54% at Alert and 27% at Barrow for the all‐year data, by 49% at Alert and 33% at Barrow for the winter data, and by 53% at Alert for the summer. It was difficult to quantify if there was a decline during the summer for Barrow since there was no clear trend. The difference in trends might be related to changes in circulation in the Arctic, variable source contribution, and/or scavenging of particles. The results revealed that EBC concentrations were 40% higher during the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation than during the negative phase. The source contributions at the two sites were determined by using trajectory analysis techniques, which revealed that Alert came under the influence of Siberia/Europe transport while Barrow showed influence from Siberian and Pacific/Asian transport.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations249
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207