MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229847860 · doi:10.5194/essdd-2-281-2009

Arctic Ocean data in CARINA

2009· preprint· en· W4229847860 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Jütterström, Leif G. Anderson, Nicholas R. Bates, R. G. J. Bellerby, Truls Johannessen, E. Peter Jones, Robert M. Key, X. Lin, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M Omar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsAlkalinityArcticEnvironmental scienceThe arcticSilicateNitrateCarbon fibersNutrientLinear regressionData setQuality (philosophy)Dissolved organic carbonTotal inorganic carbonOceanographyComputer scienceGeologyMathematicsStatisticsChemistryCarbon dioxideEcologyAlgorithmBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The paper describes the steps taken for quality controlling chosen parameters within the Arctic Ocean data included in the CARINA data set and checking for offsets between the individual cruises. The evaluated parameters are the inorganic carbon parameters (total dissolved inorganic carbon, total alkalinity and pH), oxygen and nutrients: nitrate, phosphate and silicate. More parameters can be found in the CARINA data product, but were not subject to a secondary quality control. The main method in determining offsets between cruises was regional multi-linear regression, after a first rough basin-wide deep-water estimate of each parameter. Lastly, the results of the secondary quality control are discussed as well as suggested adjustments.

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)0.003
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 score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207