Nutrient maximums related to low oxygen concentrations in the southern Canada Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of nutrient maximums at 70～200 m occurred only in the region of the Canada Basin among the world oceans. The prevailing hypothesis was that the direct injection of the low-temperature high-nutrient brines from the Chukchi Sea shelf (＜50 m) in winter provided the nutrient maximums. However, we found that there are five problems in the direct injection process. Formerly Jin et al. considered that the formation of nutrient maximums can be a process of locally long-term regeneration. Here we propose a regeneration-mixture process. Data of temperature, salinity, oxygen and nutrients were collected at three stations in the southern Canada Basin during the summer 1999 cruise. We identified the cores of the surface, near-surface, potential temperature maximum waters and Arctic Bottom Water by the diagrams and vertical profiles of salinity, potential temperature, oxygen and nutrients. The historical 129Ⅰ data indicated that the surface and near-surface waters were Pacific-origin, but the waters below the potential temperature maximum core depth was Atlantic-origin. Along with the correlation of nutrient maximums and very low oxygen contents in the near-surface water, we hypothesize that, the putative organic matter was decomposed to inorganic nutrients; and the Pacific water was mixed with the Atlantic water in the transition zone. The idea of the regeneration-mixture process agrees with the historical observations of no apparent seasonal changes, the smooth nutrient profiles, the lowest saturation of CaCO3 above 400 m, low rate of CFC-11 ventilation and 3H-3He ages of 8～18 a around the nutrient maximum depths.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".