MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239624180 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.581790

GO-SHIP Repeat Hydrography Nutrient Manual: The Precise and Accurate Determination of Dissolved Inorganic Nutrients in Seawater, Using Continuous Flow Analysis Methods

2020· article· en· W4239624180 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Susan Becker, Michio Aoyama, E. Malcolm S. Woodward, Karel Bakker, Stephen Coverly, Claire Mahaffey, Toste Tanhua

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyNational Research Council CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHydrographySeawaterNutrientCertified reference materialsEnvironmental scienceNitrateProcess engineeringComputer scienceOceanographyChemistryGeologyDetection limitEcologyEngineeringChromatographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The GO-SHIP nutrient manual covers all aspects of nutrient analysis from basic sample collection and storage, specifically for Continuous Flow analysis using an Auto-Analyzer, and describes some specific nutrient methods for Nitrate, Nitrite, Silicate, Phosphate and Ammonium that are in use by many laboratories carrying out at-sea analysis and repeat hydrography sections across the world. The focus is on segmented flow analyzers not flow injection analyzers. It also covers laboratory best practices including quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures to obtain the best results, and suggests protocols for the use of reference materials (RM) and certified reference materials (CRMs).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.043

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations148
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207