A census of quality-controlled Biogeochemical-Argo float measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".