Can simple models predict large-scale surface ocean isoprene concentrations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We use isoprene and related field measurements from three different ocean data sets together with remotely sensed satellite data to model global marine isoprene emissions. We show that using monthly mean satellite-derived chl a concentrations to parameterize isoprene with a constant chl a normalized isoprene production rate underpredicts the measured oceanic isoprene concentration by a mean factor of 19 ± 12. Improving the model by using phytoplankton functional type dependent production values and by decreasing the bacterial degradation rate of isoprene in the water column results in only a slight underestimation (factor 1.7 ± 1.2). We calculate global isoprene emissions of 0.21 Tg C for 2014 using this improved model, which is twice the value calculated using the original model. Nonetheless, the sea-to-air fluxes have to be at least 1 order of magnitude higher to account for measured atmospheric isoprene mixing ratios. These findings suggest that there is at least one missing oceanic source of isoprene and, possibly, other unknown factors in the ocean or atmosphere influencing the atmospheric values. The discrepancy between calculated fluxes and atmospheric observations must be reconciled in order to fully understand the importance of marine-derived isoprene as a precursor to remote marine boundary layer particle formation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".