MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387998413 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1233289

A census of quality-controlled Biogeochemical-Argo float measurements

2023· article· en· W4387998413 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam C. Stoer, Yuichiro Takeshita, Tanya L. Maurer, Charlotte Begouen Demeaux, Henry C. Bittig, Emmanuel Boss, Hervé Claustre, Giorgio Dall’Olmo, Christopher Gordon, B. J. W. Greenan, Kenneth S. Johnson, Emanuele Organelli, Raphaëlle Sauzède, Catherine Schmechtig, Katja Fennel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArgoFlaggingEnvironmental scienceBiogeochemical cycleDownwellingData qualityMeteorologyComputer scienceOceanographyGeographyUpwellingEngineeringCartographyEcologyGeologyOperations managementBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biogeochemical- (BGC-) Argo aims to deploy and maintain a global array of autonomous profiling floats to monitor ocean biogeochemistry. With over 250,000 profiles collected so far, the BGC-Argo network is rapidly expanding toward the target of a sustained fleet of 1,000 floats. These floats prioritize the measurement of six key properties: oxygen, nitrate, pH, chlorophyll-a, suspended particles, and downwelling light. To assess the current biogeochemical state of the ocean, its variability, and trends with confidence, it is crucial to quality control these measurements. Accordingly, BGC-Argo maintains a quality control system using manual inspection and parameter-specific algorithms for flagging and adjusting data. In this study, we provide a census of the quantity and quality of measurements from BGC-Argo based on their quality flagging system. The purpose of this census is to assess the current status of the array in terms of data quality, how data quality has changed over time, and to provide a better understanding of the quality-controlled data to current and future users. Alongside increasing profile numbers and spatial coverage, we report that for most parameters between 80 and 95% of the profiles collected so far contain high-quality BGC data, with an exception for pH. The quality of pH profiles has seen a large improvement in the last five years and is on track to match the data quality of other BGC parameters. We highlight how BGC-Argo is improving and discuss strategies to increase the quality and quantity of BGC profiles available to users. This census shows that tracking percentages of high-quality data through time is useful for monitoring float sensor technology and helpful for ensuring the long-term success of BGC-Argo.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207