MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144303639 · doi:10.3389/feart.2021.630493

Permafrost Carbon and CO2 Pathways Differ at Contrasting Coastal Erosion Sites in the Canadian Arctic

2021· article· en· W3144303639 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the 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

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAurora Research Institute
KeywordsPermafrostDebrisErosionEnvironmental scienceCoastal erosionArcticSeawaterOrganic matterTotal organic carbonCarbon dioxideHydrology (agriculture)Environmental chemistryOceanographyGeologyGeomorphologyEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Warming air and sea temperatures, longer open-water seasons and sea-level rise collectively promote the erosion of permafrost coasts in the Arctic, which profoundly impacts organic matter pathways. Although estimates on organic carbon (OC) fluxes from erosion exist for some parts of the Arctic, little is known about how much OC is transformed into greenhouse gases (GHGs). In this study we investigated two different coastal erosion scenarios on Qikiqtaruk – Herschel Island (Canada) and estimate the potential for GHG formation. We distinguished between a delayed release represented by mud debris draining a coastal thermoerosional feature and a direct release represented by cliff debris at a low collapsing bluff. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) production was measured during incubations at 4°C under aerobic conditions for two months and were modeled for four months and a full year. Our incubation results show that mud debris and cliff debris lost a considerable amount of OC as CO 2 (2.5 ± 0.2 and 1.6 ± 0.3% of OC, respectively). Although relative OC losses were highest in mineral mud debris , higher initial OC content and fresh organic matter in cliff debris resulted in a ∼three times higher cumulative CO 2 release (4.0 ± 0.9 compared to 1.4 ± 0.1 mg CO 2 gdw –1 ), which was further increased by the addition of seawater. After four months, modeled OC losses were 4.9 ± 0.1 and 3.2 ± 0.3% in set-ups without seawater and 14.3 ± 0.1 and 7.3 ± 0.8% in set-ups with seawater. The results indicate that a delayed release may support substantial cycling of OC at relatively low CO 2 production rates during long transit times onshore during the Arctic warm season. By contrast, direct erosion may result in a single CO 2 pulse and less substantial OC cycling onshore as transfer times are short. Once eroded sediments are deposited in the nearshore , highest OC losses can be expected. We conclude that the release of CO 2 from eroding permafrost coasts varies considerably between erosion types and residence time onshore . We emphasize the importance of a more comprehensive understanding of OC degradation during the coastal erosion process to improve thawed carbon trajectories and models.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.181 · 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