MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210772558 · doi:10.5194/essd-2022-34

The CISE-LOCEAN sea water isotopic database (1998–2021)

2022· preprint· en· W4210772558 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Reverdin, Claire Waelbroeck, Catherine Pierre, Camille Akhoudas, Giovanni Aloisi, Marion Benetti, Bernard Bourlès, Magnús Danielsen, Jérôme Demange, Denis Diverrès, Jean‐Claude Gascard, Marie‐Noëlle Houssais, Hervé Le Goff, Pascale Lherminier, Claire Lo Monaco, Herlé Mercier, Nicolas Metzl, Simon Morisset, Aïcha Naamar, Thierry Reynaud, Jean‐Baptiste Sallée, Virginie Thierry, Susan E. Hartman, Edward M. Mawji, Sólveig Rósa Ólafsdóttir, Torsten Kanzow, Antje H L Voelker, Igor Yashayaev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyNanoQuébec (Canada)
FundersDirectorate for Computer and Information Science and EngineeringInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversInstitut Polaire Français Paul Emile VictorCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la RechercheInstitut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer
Keywordsδ18OStandard deviationData setDatabaseConsistency (knowledge bases)Scale (ratio)Environmental scienceStable isotope ratioStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsGeographyPhysicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The characteristics of the CISE-LOCEAN sea water isotope data set (δ18O, δ2H, later designed as δD) are presented. This data set covers the time period from 1998 to 2021 and currently includes close to 8000 data entries, all with δ18O, three quarters of them also with δD, associated with a time and space stamp and usually a salinity measurement. Until 2010, samples were analysed by isotopic ratio mass spectrometry, and since then mostly by cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS). Instrumental uncertainty on individual data in this dataset is usually with a standard deviation as low as 0.03 / 0.15 ‰ for δ18O and δD. An additional uncertainty is related to uncertain isotopic composition of the in-house standards that are used to convert daily data into the VSMOW scale. Different comparisons suggest that since 2010 the latter have remained within at most 0.03 / 0.20 ‰ for δ18O and δD. Therefore, combining the two suggests a standard deviation of at most 0.05 / 0.25 ‰ for δ18O / δD. Finally, for some samples, we find that there has been evaporation during collection and storage, requiring adjustment of the isotopic data produced by CRDS, based on d-excess. This adds an uncertainty on the adjusted data of roughly 0.05 / 0.10 ‰ on δ18O and δD. This issue of conservation of samples is certainly a strong source of quality loss for parts of the database, and ‘small’ effects may have remained undetected. The internal consistency of the database can be tested for subsets of the dataset, when time series can be obtained (such as in the southern Indian Ocean or North Atlantic subpolar gyre). These comparisons suggest that the overall uncertainty of the spatially (for a cruise) or temporally (over a year) averaged data is on the order of or less than 0.03 / 0.15 ‰ for δ18O / δD. On the other hand, 17 comparisons with duplicate sea water data analysed in other laboratories or with other data sets in deep regions suggest a larger scatter. When averaging the 17 comparisons done for δ18O, we find a difference close to the adjustment applied at LOCEAN to convert salty water data from the activity to the concentration scale. Such a difference is expected, but the scatter found suggests that care is needed when merging datasets from different laboratories. Examples of time series in the surface North Atlantic subpolar gyre illustrate the temporal changes in water isotope composition that can be detected with a carefully validated dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→