MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921111493 · doi:10.3390/quat2010013

Holocene Carbon Burial in Lakes of the Uinta Mountains, Utah, USA

2019· article· en· W2921111493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey S. Munroe, Quinn Brencher

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHoloceneCarbon cycleSedimentRadiocarbon datingCarbon fibersTotal organic carbonProductivityPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeologyOceanographyHydrology (agriculture)EcologyEcosystemGeographyGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research suggests that organic matter sequestered in lake sediment comprises a larger component of the global carbon cycle than once thought, yet little is known about carbon storage in mountain lakes. Here, we used a set of sediment cores collected from lakes in the Uinta Mountains (Utah, USA) to inform a series of calculations and extrapolations leading to estimates of carbon accumulation rates and total lacustrine carbon storage in this mountain range. Holocene rates of carbon accumulation in Uinta lakes are between 0.1 and 20.5 g/m2/yr, with an average of 5.4 g/m2/yr. These rates are similar to those reported for lakes in Greenland and Finland and are substantially lower than estimates for lakes in Alberta and Minnesota. The carbon content of modern sediments of seven lakes is notably elevated above long-term Holocene values, suggesting recent changes in productivity. The lakes of the Uintas have accumulated from 6 to 10 × 105 Mt of carbon over the Holocene. This is roughly equivalent to the annual carbon emissions from Salt Lake City, Utah. Based on their long-term Holocene rates, lakes in the Uintas annually sequester an amount of carbon equivalent to the emissions of <20 average Americans.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternarySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207