MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010820005 · doi:10.1002/lom3.10354

Field evaluation of a low‐powered, profiling <i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub> system in coastal Washington

2020· article· en· W3010820005 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie N. Chu, Adrienne J. Sutton, Simone R. Alin, Noah Lawrence‐Slavas, Dariia Atamanchuk, John B. Mickett, Jan Newton, Christian Meinig, Scott Stalin, Anders Tengberg

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersOcean Acidification ProgramNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationJoint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
KeywordsOptodeEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingCarbon dioxideCalibrationProfiling (computer programming)ChemistryGeologyComputer sciencePhysicsMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summertime upwelling of deep, corrosive waters on the continental shelf of the northern California Current System can exacerbate ocean acidification conditions, providing unsuitable environments for development of calcifying organisms and finfish that are important to the local economy. To better understand the carbonate system in this dynamic region, two recently developed technologies were combined with other sensors to obtain high‐frequency carbon profile data from July 2017 to September 2017. The compact, low‐power sensor package was composed of an optical sensor for partial pressure of carbon dioxide ( p CO 2 optode, Aanderaa model #4797) integrated onto a wave‐powered PRofiling crAWLER (PRAWLER). The PRAWLER profiled from 3 to 80 m, stopping at fixed depths for varying lengths of time to allow for p CO 2 equilibration. p CO 2 derived from a regional empirical algorithm was used to correct optode drift using data at 80 m. Near‐surface adjusted optode p CO 2 agreed within 6 ± 42 μ atm to surface p CO 2 from a nearby Moored Autonomous p CO 2 instrument. Throughout the water column, optode p CO 2 compared to algorithm p CO 2 within −28 ± 66 μ atm. Overall, optode uncertainty was 35–72 μ atm based on root‐mean‐square errors from all comparison data sets. Errors are attributed to optode calibration, adjustment, algorithm uncertainty, and environmental variability between optode and reference data. Improvements for optode performance within this profiling application include using more stable sensing foils, in situ calibration, and pumped flow over the sensing foil. Additionally, the study revealed undersaturated (corrosive) waters with respect to aragonite below 60 m throughout the deployment that reached up to 40 m by mid‐September.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and Oceanography MethodsSame topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207