MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401955951 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2024-1864

The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK)

2024· preprint· en· W4401955951 on OpenAlexafffund
Ulrich G. Wortmann, Tina Tsan, Mahrukh Niazi, Ruben Navasardyan, Magnus-Roland Marun, Bernardo S. Chede, Jingwen Zhong, M. J. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsDocumentationPython (programming language)Modular designInterface (matter)Computer scienceAtmosphere (unit)Earth system scienceEarth scienceComputational scienceProgramming languageMeteorologyOperating systemGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK) is a Python library designed for building and analyzing box models in Earth science. It uses a modular, object-oriented approach to study topics like the long-term carbon cycle and the impact of atmospheric CO2 changes on seawater chemistry. ESBMTK allows users to define models in a straightforward and readable way, which also serves as documentation. These model definitions are then converted into equations and solved using standard numerical libraries. The toolkit includes features for common box modeling tasks such as gas exchange between the ocean and atmosphere, marine carbonate chemistry, and isotope calculations. ESBMTK has been effectively used in both teaching and research settings. While the library is continually being improved, its core interface is stable and comes with extensive documentation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.022

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena→French-language works237,207→