MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088520123

Towards Understanding the Contribution of Waterbodies to the Methane Emissions of a Permafrost Landscape on a Regional Scale - A Case Study from the Mackenzie Delta, Canada

2017· article· en· W3088520123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostDeltaScale (ratio)Physical geographyEnvironmental scienceEarth scienceGeographyHydrology (agriculture)GeologyCartographyOceanographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waterbodies in the arctic permafrost zone are considered a major source of the greenhouse gas methane (CH4). However, the spatio-temporal variability of CH4 fluxes from waterbodies complicates spatial extrapolation of CH4 measurements at individual waterbodies. Therefore, the contribution of CH4 emissions from different waterbody types to the CH4 budget of the arctic permafrost zone has not yet been well constrained.\n\nTo approach this problem, our study aimed i) at understanding if there are correlations between waterbodies and CH4 fluxes on a larger spatial extent containing several waterbodies and ii) at quantifying the influence of the spatial resolution of CH4 flux data on potential relations.\n\nOur two study areas of 1000 km² each are located in the northern and central part of the Mackenzie Delta, arctic Canada. We classified the waterbodies using maps from the circum-arctic Permafrost Region Pond and Lake Database (PeRL) based on TerraSAR-X data with a spatial resolution of 2.5 m x 2.5 m. We used the backscatter signals of Sentinel-1 data to determine whether or not waterbodies were freezing to the bottom to divide them into the two classes “deep” (> 2 m depth) and “shallow” (< 2 m depth). The CH4 flux map with a spatial resolution of 100 m x 100 m was calculated from data derived via the eddy-covariance technique from two aircraft campaigns in July 2012 and 2013. We coarsened the resolution of the CH4 flux map manually, to analyze if different spatial resolutions of CH4 flux data have an effect on the relation between waterbody characteristics (coverage, number, depth, size) and CH4 flux.\n\nWe found that in both study areas, there was no correlation at any spatial resolution between the area fraction covered with water and the CH4 flux at a significance level of α = 0.05. We did not find consistent correlations or patterns between the number, size or depth of waterbodies and the CH4 flux in the two study areas. While there was no significant correlation in the central study area, in the northern study area a higher number of small or shallow waterbodies slightly increased the CH4 flux, whereas deep waterbodies decreased the CH4 flux. Our results indicate that waterbodies in permafrost landscapes do not necessarily act as significant CH4 emission hotspots on a regional scale containing both waterbodies and wetlands.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.276 · 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