MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394695755 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.05.586816

A blueprint for national assessments of the blue carbon capacity of kelp forests applied to Canada’s coastline

2024· preprint· en· W4394695755 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer McHenry, Daniel K. Okamoto, Karen Filbee‐Dexter, Kira A. Krumhansl, Kathleen A. MacGregor, Margot Hessing‐Lewis, Brian Timmer, Philippe Archambault, Claire M Attridge, Delphine Cottier, Maycira Costa, Matt Csordas, Ladd E. Johnson, Joanne Lessard, Alejandra Mora‐Soto, Anna Meta×as, Chris Neufeld, Ondine Pontier, Luba Y. Reshitnyk, Samuel Starko, Jennifer Yakimishyn, Julia K. Baum

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalSimon Fraser UniversityArcticNetUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaHakai InstituteMitacsArcticNetTula Foundation
KeywordsKelpKelp forestCarbon sequestrationBlue carbonEnvironmental scienceBlueprintClimate changeBiomass (ecology)Carbon cycleCarbon fibersEcologyEcosystemBiologyCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kelp forests offer substantial carbon fixation, with the potential to contribute to natural climate solutions (NCS). However, to be included in national NCS inventories, governments must first quantify the kelp-derived carbon stocks and fluxes leading to carbon sequestration. Here, we present a blueprint for assessing the national carbon sequestration capacity of kelp forests in which data synthesis and Bayesian hierarchical modelling enable estimates of kelp forest carbon production, storage, and export capacity from limited data. Applying this blueprint to Canada’s extensive coastline, we find kelp forests store an estimated 1.4 Tg C in short-term biomass and produce 3.1 Tg C yr -1 with modest carbon fluxes to the deep ocean. Arctic kelps had the highest carbon stocks and production capacity, while Pacific kelps had greater carbon fluxes overall due to their higher productivity and export rates. Our transparent, reproducible blueprint represents an important step towards accurate carbon accounting for kelp forests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207