MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410093488 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-1802

Annual carbon dioxide flux over seasonal sea ice in the Canadian Arctic

2025· preprint· en· W4410093488 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brian Butterworth, Brent Else, Kristina A. Brown, C. J. Mundy, William J. Williams, Lina M. Rotermund, Gijs de Boer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarbon dioxideFlux (metallurgy)The arcticEnvironmental scienceClimatologySea iceArcticOceanographyArctic ice packAtmospheric sciencesGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Continuous measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) flux were collected from a 10-m eddy covariance tower in a coastal-marine environment in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago over the course of a 17-month period. The extended length of data collection resulted in a unique dataset that includes measurements from two spring melt and summer seasons and one autumn freeze-up. These field observations were used to verify findings from previous theoretical and laboratory experiments investigating air-sea gas exchange in connection with sea ice. The results corroborated previous findings showing that full sea ice cover under winter conditions acts as a barrier to gas exchange. In the spring, CO2 fluxes were downward (uptake) in both the presence of melt ponds and during ice break-up. However, diurnal cycles were present throughout the early spring melt period, corresponding to the opposing influences of freezing and melting at the ice surface. Fluxes measured during melt periods confirmed previous laboratory tank measurements that showed a gas transfer coefficient of melting ice of 0.4 mol m−2 d−1 atm−1. Open water CO2 fluxes showed outgassing in early summer and uptake in mid-to-late summer, tied closely to trends in surface water temperature and its effect on the partial pressure of CO2 in the water. The winter field campaign represents the first eddy covariance CO2 fluxes measured over naturally forming sea ice. Our measurements showed mean upward fluxes (outgassing) of 1.1 ± 1.5 mmol m−2 d−1 associated with the freezing of ice – the same order of magnitude found by previous laboratory tank experiments. However, peak flux periods during ice formation had measured fluxes that were a factor of 3 higher than the tank experiments, suggesting the importance of natural conditions (e.g., wind) on air-ice gas exchange. Conducting an Arctic-wide extrapolation we estimate CO2 outgassing from the freezing period to be 5 to 15% of the magnitude of the estimated Arctic CO2 sink. Overall, there was no evidence of dramatically enhanced gas exchange in marginal ice conditions as proposed by previous studies. Although the different seasons showed active CO2 exchange, there was a balance between upward and downward fluxes at this specific location, resulting in a small net CO2 uptake over the annual cycle of −0.3 g-C m−2.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→