MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756374360 · doi:10.1002/2017gl075123

Using Noble Gas Measurements to Derive Air‐Sea Process Information and Predict Physical Gas Saturations

2017· article· en· W2756374360 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roberta C. Hamme, Steven Emerson, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Matthew C. Long, Igor Yashayaev

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNoble gasSupersaturationEnvironmental scienceBubbleThermodynamicsSaturation (graph theory)Atmospheric sciencesMechanicsPhysicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dissolved gas distributions are important because they influence oceanic habitats and Earth's climate, yet competing controls by biology and physics make gas distributions challenging to predict. Bubble‐mediated gas exchange, temperature change, and varying atmospheric pressure all push gases away from equilibrium. Here we use new noble gas measurements from the Labrador Sea to demonstrate a technique to quantify physical processes. Our analysis shows that water‐mass formation can be represented by a quasi steady state in which bubble fluxes and cooling push gases away from equilibrium balanced by diffusive gas exchange forcing gases toward equilibrium. We quantify the rates of these physical processes from our measurements, allowing direct comparison to gas exchange parameterizations, and predict the physically driven saturation of other gases. This technique produces predictions that reasonably match N2/Ar observations and demonstrates that physical processes should force SF6 to be ∼6% more supersaturated than CFC‐11 and CFC‐12, impacting ventilation age calculations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicOceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesFrench-language works237,207