MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304784517 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.981569

Assessing the carbon sink capacity of coastal mariculture shellfish resources in China from 1981–2020

2022· article· en· W4304784517 on OpenAlexaff
Yixin Gu, Shaoliang Lyu, Lifei Wang, Zhijie Chen, Xuefeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsMaricultureShellfishFisheryCarbon sinkEnvironmental scienceSink (geography)AquacultureClimate changeEcologyGeographyAquatic animalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ocean has considerable potential to function as a carbon sink, absorbing anthropogenic CO 2 and buffering the effects of climate change. How the culture of shellfish can be used to increase the ocean carbon sink warrants evaluation. We analyze the production and carbon sink capacity of six important mariculture shellfish species (oyster, ark clam, mussel, scallop, clam, and razor clam) in nine coastal provinces of China from 1981–2020 using quality assessment and logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) decomposition methods. Over this time period both cultured shellfish production and its contribution to the carbon sink generally increase, averaging approximately 600,000 t annually over the last four decades. Both the annual production and carbon sink capacity of China’s mariculture shellfish industry vary geographically. The total annual tonnage (scale) of cultured shellfish, and to a lesser extent, coastal shellfish species composition (structure) influence carbon sink capacity, and affect China’s plans to achieve “dual carbon goals.” Combining historical analysis and the LMDI method, we propose a scheme that optimally and more sustainably manages China’s culture of shellfish.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207