Suspended particles in the Canada Basin from optical and bottle data, 2003–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. It is expected that coastal erosion, upwelling and increased river runoff from Arctic warming will increase the concentration of suspended particles in the Arctic Ocean. Here we analyze in situ transmissometer and fluorometer data from the summers of 2003 through 2008 and bottle-derived particulate organic carbon (POC) and total suspended solids (TSS) measurements sampled in the summers of 2006 and 2007 from the Canada Basin and surrounding shelves. By coupling these data sets, we explored the correlation of POC with beam attenuation coefficients to assess the viability of estimating POC concentrations from archived transmissometer data. We divided our study area into five regions to account for the significant spatial variability and found that POC (but not TSS) and attenuation were well-correlated over the Northwind Ridge, in the Canada Basin interior, and along the eastern shelf of the Canada Basin. We then estimated POC from attenuation for these regions and found that the average POC ranged from 16 to 37 μg C kg−1 within the upper 50 m and from 14 to 23 μg C kg−1 from 50–100 m. The strength of the chlorophyll maximum appeared to dominate the average POC values. In general, the eastern shelf was the least productive region in our study area. Neither TSS nor POC were well-correlated along the entire Beaufort shelf. Our interannual comparison from the summers of 2003 through 2008 found no evidence of increased particle concentrations over the Northwind Ridge, in the Canada Basin interior, or along the eastern shelf, however, this work provides a baseline of suspended POC concentrations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".