MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611224903 · doi:10.5194/acp-17-12779-2017

Do contemporary (1980–2015) emissions determine the elemental carbon deposition trend at Holtedahlfonna glacier, Svalbard?

2017· article· en· W2611224903 on OpenAlexaff
Meri Ruppel, Joana Soares, Jean‐Charles Gallet, Elisabeth Isaksson, Tõnu Martma, Jonas Svensson, Jack Kohler, Christina A. Pedersen, Sirkku Manninen, Atte Korhola, J. Ström

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNorsk PolarinstituttNordForskAcademy of Finland
KeywordsFirnIce coreGlacierDeposition (geology)SnowAtmospheric sciencesArcticEnvironmental scienceClimatologyPhysical geographyPrecipitationGeologyOceanographyMeteorologyGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The climate impact of black carbon (BC) is notably amplified in the Arctic by its deposition, which causes albedo decrease and subsequent earlier snow and ice spring melt. To comprehensively assess the climate impact of BC in the Arctic, information on both atmospheric BC concentrations and deposition is essential. Currently, Arctic BC deposition data are very scarce, while atmospheric BC concentrations have been shown to generally decrease since the 1990s. However, a 300-year Svalbard ice core showed a distinct increase in EC (elemental carbon, proxy for BC) deposition from 1970 to 2004 contradicting atmospheric measurements and modelling studies. Here, our objective was to decipher whether this increase has continued in the 21st century and to investigate the drivers of the observed EC deposition trends. For this, a shallow firn core was collected from the same Svalbard glacier, and a regional-to-meso-scale chemical transport model (SILAM) was run from 1980 to 2015. The ice and firn core data indicate peaking EC deposition values at the end of the 1990s and lower values thereafter. The modelled BC deposition results generally support the observed glacier EC variations. However, the ice and firn core results clearly deviate from both measured and modelled atmospheric BC concentration trends, and the modelled BC deposition trend shows variations seemingly independent from BC emission or atmospheric BC concentration trends. Furthermore, according to the model ca. 99 % BC mass is wet-deposited at this Svalbard glacier, indicating that meteorological processes such as precipitation and scavenging efficiency have most likely a stronger influence on the BC deposition trend than BC emission or atmospheric concentration trends. BC emission source sectors contribute differently to the modelled atmospheric BC concentrations and BC deposition, which further supports our conclusion that different processes affect atmospheric BC concentration and deposition trends. Consequently, Arctic BC deposition trends should not directly be inferred based on atmospheric BC measurements, and more observational BC deposition data are required to assess the climate impact of BC in Arctic snow.

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)0.001
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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207