MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387783386 · doi:10.1029/2023gb007878

Global Nitrogen Mass Flux From the Active Freshwater Aquifer Element Pool

2023· article· en· W4387783386 on OpenAlexaff
Warren W. Wood, Ward E. Sanford, John A. Cherry, D. W. Hyndman, Warren T. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferGroundwater rechargeFlux (metallurgy)GroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)NitrogenWater massGeologyContinental shelfEnvironmental scienceOceanographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The estimated current global mean nitrogen concentration (geogenic + anthropogenic) in the active continental freshwater aquifer element pool is 1.1 mg/L as N, or between four and five times greater than the assumed geogenic mean. This concentration, combined with groundwater flux, generates a continental mass flux of 17 Tg N/y (teragrams of nitrogen, as N, per year) as a result of direct ocean discharge (0.67 Tg N/y), endorheic basins (1.2 Tg N/y), and cold‐wet (0.82 Tg N/y); cold‐dry (1.4 Tg N/y); warm‐dry (1.6 Tg N/y); and warm‐wet (11 Tg N/y) exorheic basins. These values are derived from a geospatial machine learning algorithm and combined groundwater‐modeled recharge in an ArcGIS environment. This active continental freshwater aquifer mass flux is between 35% and 40% of the continental integrated riverine system discharge, thus a significant component of the Earth's active continental freshwater nitrogen budget. We estimate the active continental freshwater aquifer volume to be between 1.4 and 2.8 million km 3 suggesting a legacy of between 1.5 and 3.1 Pg as N (petagrams nitrogen as N) with mean residences of 90–180 years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biogeochemical CyclesSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207