MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904569343 · doi:10.1029/2018gl080099

Air‐Sea CO<sub>2</sub> Flux Estimates in Stratified Arctic Coastal Waters: How Wrong Can We Be?

2018· article· en· W2904569343 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa A. Miller, Tonya Burgers, William J. Burt, Mats A. Granskog, Tim Papakyriakou

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorsk PolarinstituttArcticNet
KeywordsSeawaterSink (geography)Environmental scienceArcticSalinityOceanographyFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric sciencesSampling (signal processing)Surface waterSurface runoffHydrology (agriculture)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summer near‐surface seawater sampling in the Canadian Arctic revealed potential for significant errors (nearly 0.1 μmol·(m ‐2 s ‐1 )) in CO 2 fluxes calculated from measured air‐sea CO 2 gradients. River runoff and sea ice melt strongly stratify these waters, often resulting in surface mixed layers only a few meters thick and isolated from waters sampled by shipboard underway systems. Samples collected with the underway system, rosette, and small boats exposed substantial near‐surface gradients in CO 2 partial pressure ( p CO 2 ) over the top 7 m at many stations. Distributions of temperature, salinity, and fluorescence indicated that the sources of the CO 2 system gradients varied between stations, precluding simple corrections to align subsurface data with shallower conditions. Overall, the strong summertime sink of atmospheric CO 2 implied by the underway data was not supported by shallower data.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207