MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746591632 · doi:10.1002/2017gl073933

Intense oceanic uptake of oxygen during 2014–2015 winter convection in the Labrador Sea

2017· article· en· W2746591632 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jannes Koelling, Douglas W.R. Wallace, Uwe Send, Johannes Karstensen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixed layerOxygenConvectionForcing (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesMooringEnvironmental scienceGeologyDeep convectionClimatologyOceanographyChemistryMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Measurements of near‐surface oxygen (O2) concentrations and mixed layer depth from the K1 mooring in the central Labrador Sea are used to calculate the change in column‐integrated (0–1700 m) O2 content over the deep convection winter 2014/2015. During the mixed layer deepening period, November 2014 to April 2015, the oxygen content increased by 24.3 ± 3.4 mol m−2, 40% higher than previous results from winters with weaker convection. By estimating the contribution of respiration and lateral transport on the oxygen budget, the cumulative air‐sea gas exchange is derived. The O2 uptake of 29.1 ± 3.8 mol m−2, driven by persistent undersaturation (≥5%) and strong atmospheric forcing, is substantially higher than predicted by standard (nonbubble) gas exchange parameterizations, whereas most bubble‐resolving parameterizations predict higher uptake, comparable to our results. Generally large but varying mixed layer depths and strong heat and momentum fluxes make the Labrador Sea an ideal test bed for process studies aimed at improving gas exchange parameterizations.

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)0.000
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207