Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article submitted by Chastain and al aims to estimate carbon stocks and accumulation rates in salt marshes of the Pacific coast of Canada.The argument is the capacity of tidal salt marshes to sequestrate C. However there are still a limited number of marshes for which carbon accumulation have been estimated.In this work, the authors present an new investigation of salt marshes of the Pacific Canadian coast.The paper address a relevant scientific questions within the scope of BG and present new data.But I have a major problem with the estimate of the mass accumulation rate.There is no details on 210Pb data and not enough on the dating method.Indeed to estimate CAR, it is necessary to estimate carbon but also sediment accumulation rates.It is classical to use 210Pb for dating sediments over the last decades.Measurements by gamma spectrometry permit to determine also 226Ra, the supported 210Pb, and C1 Printer-friendly version Discussion paper representative of the different systems.I do not recommend publication of this work.
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 | 0.041 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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".