MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599087452 · doi:10.3390/atmos8040065

Spatial Variability and Factors Influencing the Air-Sea N2O Flux in the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea and Chukchi Abyssal Plain

2017· article· en· W2599087452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Man Wu, Liqi Chen, Liyang Zhan, Jiexia Zhang, Yuhong Li, Jian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCanada BasinOceanographyGeologySubarctic climateContinental shelfSink (geography)Abyssal zoneArcticFlux (metallurgy)Structural basinHaloclineEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesGeomorphologySalinity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concentrations of the ozone-depleting greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) in the upper 300 m of the Subarctic and Arctic Oceans determined during the 5th Chinese National Arctic Research Expedition were studied. The surface water samples revealed that the study area could be divided into three regions according to the distribution of dissolved N2O in the surface water, namely, the Aleutian Basin (52° N–60° N), continental shelf (60° N–73° N) and Canadian Basin (north of 73° N), with N2O in the surface water in equilibrium, oversaturated and undersaturated relative to the atmosphere, respectively. The influences of physical and chemical processes, such as eddy diffusion and sedimentary emissions, beneath the surface layer are discussed. The results of a flux evaluation show that the Aleutian Basin may be a weak N2O source of approximately 0.46 ± 0.1 μmol·m−2·d−1, and the continental shelf acts as a strong N2O source of approximately 8.2 ± 1.4 μmol·m−2·d−1. By contrast, the Chukchi Abyssal Plain (CAP) of the Canadian Basin is at least a temporal N2O sink with a strength of approximately −10.2 ± 1.4 μmol·m−2·d−1.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207