MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132412797 · doi:10.5194/os-5-711-2009

Carbon export and sequestration in the southern Benguela upwelling system: lower and upper estimates

2009· article· en· W2132412797 on OpenAlexaff
H. N. Waldron, Pedro M. S. Monteiro, Neil C. Swart

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpwellingIsopycnalGeologyAdvectionOceanographyNepheloid layerClimatologyCarbon sequestrationCarbon dioxideWater column

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Three independent studies of carbon export and sequestration in the southern Benguela upwelling system are presented. They were undertaken by Waldron (upwelling index), Monteiro (discrete upwelling centres – gate hypothesis model) and Swart (cross-shelf advection in bottom nelpheloid layers). The annual estimates were, 3.9×1013, 0.72×1013 and 8.6×1011 gC, respectively. The lowest estimate was derived from a consideration of low frequency lateral carbon export in the bottom nepheloid layer and was thought likely to be an under-estimate. Taking into account high frequency episodic events, intermediate nepheloid layers and along isopycnal export of DOC at surface and intermediate depths was thought likely to result in a substantial upward revision. The remaining two estimates were considered to be an upper and lower estimate of carbon export and sequestration due to factors inherent in the methodologies. The upper estimate presents a two-dimensional system, integrated alongshore; the lower estimate sums a series of upwelling centres in order to obtain a system flux. The former is therefore a uniform extrapolation along the coast while the latter omits upwelling between the upwelling centres.

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean scienceSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207