An international intercomparison of stable carbon isotope composition measurements of dissolved inorganic carbon in seawater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report results of an intercomparison of stable carbon isotope ratio measurements in seawater dissolved inorganic carbon (δ13C‐DIC) which involved 16 participating laboratories from various parts of the world. The intercomparison involved distribution of samples of a Certified Reference Material for seawater DIC concentration and alkalinity and a preserved sample of deep seawater collected at 4000 m in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean. The between‐lab standard deviation of reported uncorrected values measured with diverse analytical, detection, and calibration methods was 0.11‰ (1σ). The multi‐lab average δ13C‐DIC value reported for the deep seawater sample was consistent within 0.1‰ with historical measured values for the same water mass. Application of a correction procedure based on a consensus value for the distributed reference material, improved the between‐lab standard deviation to 0.06‰. The magnitude of the corrections were similar to those used to correct independent data sets using crossover comparisons, where deep water analyses from different cruises are compared at nearby locations. Our results demonstrate that the accuracy/uncertainty target proposed by the Global Ocean Observing System (±0.05‰) is attainable, but only if an aqueous phase reference material for δ13C‐DIC is made available and used by the measurement community. Our results imply that existing Certified Reference Materials used for seawater DIC and alkalinity quality control are suitable for this purpose, if a “Certified” or internally consistent “consensus” value for δ13C‐DIC can be assigned to various batches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".