MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206967407 · doi:10.1029/2021jg006396

Influence of Permafrost Type and Site History on Losses of Permafrost Carbon After Thaw

2021· article· en· W3206967407 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen Manies, Miriam C. Jones, Mark P. Waldrop, Mary‐Cathrine Leewis, Christopher C. Fuller, Robert S. Cornman, K. Hoefke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostPeatChronosequenceGeologyBogRadiocarbon datingThermokarstPlateau (mathematics)WetlandMacrofossilPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologySoil scienceGeochemistryHolocenePaleontologySoil waterEcologyGeotechnical engineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We quantified permafrost peat plateau and post‐thaw carbon (C) stocks across a chronosequence in Interior Alaska to evaluate the amount of C lost with thaw. Macrofossil reconstructions revealed three stratigraphic layers of peat: (a) a base layer of fen/marsh peat, (b) peat from a forested peat plateau (with permafrost), and (c) collapse‐scar bog peat (at sites where permafrost thaw has occurred). Radiocarbon dating revealed that peat initiated within the last 2,500 years and that permafrost aggraded during the Little Ice Age (ca. 250–575 years ago) and degraded within the last several decades. The timing of permafrost thaw within each feature was not related to thaw bog size. Their rate of expansion may be more influenced by local factors, such as ground ice content and subsurface water inputs. We found C losses due to thaw over the past century were up to 46% of the C available, but the absolute amount of C lost (kg m −2 ) was over 50% lower than losses previously described in other Alaskan peatland chronosequences. We hypothesize that this difference stems from the process by which permafrost aggraded, with sites that formed permafrost epigenetically (significantly later than most peat accumulation) experiencing less absolute C loss with thaw than sites that formed syngenetically (simultaneously with peat accumulation). Epigenetic peat from our site had lower C:N ratios as compared to Alaskan sites that have syngenetic peat. This difference could help predict the magnitude of C loss with thaw across a range or permafrost types and histories.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research BiogeosciencesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207