MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997662506 · doi:10.1029/2019gl085897

Burial and Origin of Permafrost‐Derived Carbon in the Nearshore Zone of the Southern Canadian Beaufort Sea

2020· article· en· W2997662506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hendrik Grotheer, Vera D Meyer, Thomas Riedel, Gregor Pfalz, L. Mathieu, Jens Hefter, Torben Gentz, Hugues Lantuit, Gesine Mollenhauer, Michael Fritz

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaimler und Benz Stiftung
KeywordsPermafrostGeologyArcticOceanographyTotal organic carbonSedimentary rockEarth scienceOrganic matterErosionCoastal erosionCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologyPaleontologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Detailed organic geochemical and carbon isotopic (δ13C and Δ14C) analyses are performed on permafrost deposits affected by coastal erosion (Herschel Island, Canadian Beaufort Sea) and adjacent marine sediments (Herschel Basin) to understand the fate of organic carbon in Arctic nearshore environments. We use an end‐member model based on the carbon isotopic composition of bulk organic matter to identify sources of organic carbon. Monte Carlo simulations are applied to quantify the contribution of coastal permafrost erosion to the sedimentary carbon budget. The models suggest that ~40% of all carbon released by local coastal permafrost erosion is efficiently trapped and sequestered in the nearshore zone. This highlights the importance of sedimentary traps in environments such as basins, lagoons, troughs, and canyons for the carbon sequestration in previously poorly investigated, nearshore areas.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations62
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207