MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901214910 · doi:10.1017/s0954102018000354

The thermal structure of the anoxic trough in Lake Untersee, Antarctica

2018· article· en· W2901214910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James Bevington, Christopher P. McKay, Alfonso F. Dávila, Ian Hawes, Yukiko Tanabe, Dale T. Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueAntarctic Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondation familiale TrottierTawani FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAnoxic watersStructural basinGeologyOpacityWater columnThermal energyThermalGlacierHydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologyOceanographyThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lake Untersee is a perennially ice-covered Antarctic lake that consists of two basins. The deepest basin, next to the Anuchin Glacier is aerobic to its maximum depth of 160 m. The shallower basin has a maximum depth of 100 m, is anoxic below 80 m, and is shielded from convective currents. The thermal profile in the anoxic basin is unusual in that the water temperature below 50 m is constant at 4°C but rises to 5°C between 70 m and 80 m depth, then drops to 3.7°C at the bottom. Field measurements were used to conduct a thermal and stability analysis of the anoxic basin. The shape of the thermal maximum implies two discrete locations of energy input, one of 0.11 W m-2 at 71 m depth and one of 0.06 W m-2 at 80 m depth. Heat from microbial activity cannot account for the required amount of energy at either depth. Instead, absorption of solar radiation due to an increase in water opacity at these depths can account for the required energy input. Hence, while microbial metabolism is not an important source of heat, biomass increases opacity in the water column resulting in greater absorption of sunlight.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntarctic ScienceSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207