MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234895301 · doi:10.2172/927587

International Collaboration on CO2 Sequestration

2007· report· en· W4234895301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter H. Israelsson, E. Eric Adams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationGovernment (linguistics)CommercializationWork (physics)BusinessEngineeringLibrary scienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMarketingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On December 4, 1997, the US Department of Energy (USDOE), the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization of Japan (NEDO), and the Norwegian Research Council (NRC) entered into a Project Agreement for International Collaboration on CO{sub 2} Ocean Sequestration. Government organizations from Japan, Canada, and Australia, and a Swiss/Swedish engineering firm later joined the agreement, which outlined a research strategy for ocean carbon sequestration via direct injection. The members agreed to an initial field experiment, with the hope that if the initial experiment was successful, there would be subsequent field evaluations of increasingly larger scale to evaluate environmental impacts of sequestration and the potential for commercialization. The evolution of the collaborative effort, the supporting research, and results for the International Collaboration on CO{sub 2} Ocean Sequestration were documented in almost 100 papers and reports, including 18 peer-reviewed journal articles, 46 papers, 28 reports, and 4 graduate theses. These efforts were summarized in our project report issued January 2005 and covering the period August 23, 1998-October 23, 2004. An accompanying CD contained electronic copies of all the papers and reports. This report focuses on results of a two-year sub-task to update an environmental assessment of acute marine impacts resulting from direct ocean sequestration. The approach is based on the work of Auerbach et al. [6] and Caulfield et al. [20] to assess mortality to zooplankton, but uses updated information concerning bioassays, an updated modeling approach and three modified injection scenarios: a point release of negatively buoyant solid CO{sub 2} hydrate particles from a moving ship; a long, bottom-mounted diffuser discharging buoyant liquid CO{sub 2} droplets; and a stationary point release of hydrate particles forming a sinking plume. Results suggest that in particular the first two discharge modes could be successfully designed to largely avoid zooplankton mortality. Sub-lethal and ecosystem effects are discussed qualitatively, but not analyzed quantitatively.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.276 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207