Variability of USA East Coast surface total alkalinity distributions revealed by automated instrument measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seawater total alkalinity (TA) is one important determinant used to monitor the ocean carbon cycle, whose spatial distributions have previously been characterized along the United States East Coast via discrete bottle samples. Using these data, several regional models for TA retrievals based on practical salinity (S) have been developed. Broad-scale seasonal or interannual variations, however, are not well resolved in these models and existing data are highly seasonally biased. This study reports findings from the first long duration deployment of a new, commercially available TA titrator aboard a research vessel and the continuous underway surface TA measurements produced. The instrument, operated on seven East Coast USA cruises during six months in 2017 and for two months in 2018 on the summertime East Coast Ocean Acidification survey (ECOA-2), collected a total of nearly 11,000 surface TA measurements. Data from these efforts, along with a newly synthesized set of more than 11,000 regional surface TA observations, are analyzed to re-examine distributions of TA and S along the United States East Coast. Overall, regional distributions of S and TA generally agreed with prior findings, but linear TA:S regressions varied markedly over time and deviated from previously developed models. This variability is likely due to a combination of biological, seasonal, and episodic influences and indicates that substantial errors of ±10–20 μmol kg−1 in TA estimation from S can be expected due to these factors. This finding has likely implications for numerical ecosystem modeling and inorganic carbon system calculations. New results presented in this paper provide refined surface TA:S relationships, present more data in space and time, and improve TA modeling uncertainty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".