MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220806592 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-7037

Destabilizing the Earth’s thermostat: Riverine alkalinity responses to climate change

2022· preprint· en· W4220806592 on OpenAlexaff
Nele Lehmann, Tobias Stacke, Sebastian Lehmann, Hugues Lantuit, John Gosse, Chantal Mears, Jens Hartmann, Helmuth Thomas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlkalinityBicarbonateChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alkalinity generation from rock weathering is thought to modulate the Earth’s climate at geological time scales. Here, we use global alkalinity data paired with consistent measurements of erosion rates to develop an empirically-based model for riverine alkalinity concentration, demonstrating the impact of both erosion (i.e. erosion rate) and climate (i.e. temperature) on alkalinity generation, globally. We show that alkalinity generation from carbonate rocks is very responsive to temperature and that the weathering flux to the ocean will be significantly altered by climate warming as early as the end of this century, constituting a sudden feedback of ocean CO2 sequestration to climate. While we anticipate that climate warming under a low emissions scenario will induce a reduction in terrestrial alkalinity flux for mid-latitudes (-1.3 t(bicarbonate) a-1 km-2) until the end of the century, resulting in a temporary reduction in CO2 sequestration, we expect an increase (+1.6 t(bicarbonate) a-1 km-2) under a high emissions scenario, causing an additional short-term CO2 sink at decadal timescales.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus→French-language works237,207→