MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908555169 · doi:10.1002/ppp.1994

Greenhouse gas formation in ice wedges at Cyuie, central Yakutia

2019· article· en· W2908555169 on OpenAlexaff
Kyung-Min Kim, Ji‐Woong Yang, Hyunsuk Yoon, Eunji Byun, Alexander N. Fedorov, Yeongjun Ryu, Jinho Ahn

Bibliographic record

VenuePermafrost and Periglacial Processes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsSnowPermafrostSnowmeltGeologyGreenhouse gasAtmospheric sciencesBiogeochemical cycleCarbon dioxideGlacial periodMixing ratioGeomorphologyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trapped in ice wedges may provide useful information on biogeochemical environments in ground ice. Previous studies have reported highly elevated CO2 and CH4 mixing ratios in ice wedges. However, N2O mixing ratios in ice wedges remain unknown. Here, we present CO2, CH4 and N2O mixing ratios in bubbles and plausible mechanisms of GHG formation for two lakeside ice wedges at Cyuie village near Yakutsk. The CO2 gas age corresponds to the Last Glacial Maximum (18–19 ka). The δ(N2/Ar) values and bubble shapes indicate that the ice wedges formed by dry snow compaction rather than snowmelt water refreezing, while the δ18O and δD values of the ice indicate changes in the source area location and/or the climate during the Last Glacial Maximum. Using a dry extraction method, we obtained gas mixing ratios of 7–13% CO2, 5–130 ppm CH4 and 100–5000 ppb N2O. The δ(O2/Ar) values imply that most of the O2 was consumed by biological respiration. The CH4 is negatively correlated with N2O and CO2. The N2O might have inhibited CH4 production.

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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePermafrost and Periglacial ProcessesSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207