MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114143259 · doi:10.1002/jgrg.20092

Integrating carbon emissions from lakes and streams in a subarctic catchment

2013· article· en· W2114143259 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erik Lundin, Reiner Giesler, Andreas Persson, Megan S. Thompson, Jan Karlsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVetenskapsrådetNaturvårdsverketLunds Universitet
KeywordsSTREAMSSubarctic climateEnvironmental scienceDrainage basinHydrology (agriculture)Aquatic ecosystemAtmosphere (unit)EcologyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Northern inland waters emit CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere but the importance of these emissions is poorly understood due to a lack of integrated catchment‐scale estimates of carbon (C) emissions from lakes and streams. In this study we quantified the annual emission of CO2 and CH4 from 27 lakes and 23 stream segments in a 15 km2 subarctic catchment in northern Sweden. All lakes and streams were net sources of C to the atmosphere on an annual basis. Streams dominated (96%) the aquatic CO2 emission while lakes (61%) dominated the aquatic CH4 emission. Total aquatic C emission from the catchment was estimated to be 9.1 g C m−2 yr−1 (98% as CO2). Although streams only accounted for 4% of the aquatic area in the catchment, they accounted for 95% of the total emission. The C emissions from lakes and streams were considerably larger than previously reported downstream waterborne export of C from the catchment, indicating that the atmospheric losses of C in the aquatic systems are an important component in the catchment C balance.

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)0.000
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations117
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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