Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The deliberate increase of ocean alkalinity (referred to as Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement or OAE) has been proposed as a method for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Before OAE can be implemented safely, efficiently, and at scale several research questions have to be addressed including: 1) which alkaline feedstocks are best suited and in what doses can they be added safely, 2) how can net carbon uptake be measured and verified, and 3) what are the potential ecosystem impacts. These research questions cannot be addressed by direct observation alone but will require skillful and fit-for-purpose models. This chapter provides an overview of the most relevant modeling tools, including turbulence-, regional- and global-scale biogeochemical models, and techniques including approaches for model validation, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation. Typical biogeochemical model assumptions and their limitations are discussed in the context of OAE research, which leads to an identification of further development needs to make models more applicable to OAE research questions. A description of typical steps in model validation is followed by proposed minimum criteria for what constitutes a model that is fit for its intended purpose. After providing an overview of approaches for sound integration of models and observations via data assimilation, the application of Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs) for observing system design is described within the context of OAE research. Criteria for model validation and intercomparison studies are presented. The article concludes with a summary of recommendations and potential pitfalls to be avoided.
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 | 0.019 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.143 | 0.068 |
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".