MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125392769 · doi:10.5194/essd-2-71-2010

Arctic Ocean data in CARINA

2010· article· en· W2125392769 on OpenAlex
Sara Jütterström, Leif G. Anderson, Nicholas R. Bates, R. G. J. Bellerby, Truls Johannessen, E. Peter Jones, Robert M. Key, X. Lin, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M Omar

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth system science data · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsAlkalinityArcticEnvironmental scienceNutrientThe arcticSilicateNitrateCarbon fibersTotal inorganic carbonData setLinear regressionOceanographyGeologyCarbon dioxideStatisticsComputer scienceChemistryMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The paper describes the steps taken for quality controlling chosen parameters within the Arctic Ocean data included in the CARINA data set and checking for offsets between the individual cruises. The evaluated parameters are the inorganic carbon parameters (total dissolved inorganic carbon, total alkalinity and pH), oxygen and nutrients: nitrate, phosphate and silicate. More parameters can be found in the CARINA data product, but were not subject to a secondary quality control. The main method in determining offsets between cruises was regional multi-linear regression, after a first rough basin-wide deep-water estimate of each parameter. Lastly, the results of the secondary quality control are discussed as well as applied adjustments.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.230 · 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