Evidence for greater oxygen decline rates in the coastal ocean than in the open ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the global ocean, the number of reported hypoxic sites (oxygen <30% saturation) is on the rise both near the coast and in the open ocean. But unfortunately, most of the papers on hypoxia only present oxygen data from one or two years, so that we often lack a long-term perspective on whether oxygen levels at these locations are decreasing, steady or increasing. Consequently, we cannot rule out the possibility that many of the newly reported hypoxic areas were hypoxic in the past, and that the increasing number of hypoxic areas partly reflects increased research and monitoring efforts. Here we address this shortcoming by computing oxygen concentration trends in the global ocean from published time series and from time series that we calculated using a global oxygen database. Our results show that oxygen concentrations are generally decreasing in the ocean. They also reveal a greater percentage of negative trends for published oxygen time series than for oxygen time series computed from the global oxygen database, particularly in the open ocean. Finally, the oxygen decline rates computed from the global oxygen database are more severe in a 30 km band near the coast than in the open ocean, probably in response to human-caused eutrophication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".