The <scp> ICOS OTC <i>p</i> CO <sub>2</sub> </scp> instrument intercomparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2021, the Ocean Thematic Centre of the European Research Infrastructure “Integrated Carbon Observation System” conducted an international partial pressure of carbon dioxide ( p CO 2 ) instrument intercomparison. The goal was to understand how different types of instrumentation for the measurement of ocean p CO 2 compare to each other. During the two‐week long experiment, we installed various instruments in a tank facility using natural sea water (North Sea). These included direct air–water equilibration systems and membrane‐based flow‐through instruments along with submersible sensors and instruments that are normally installed on buoys and autonomous surface vehicles. In situ instruments were installed inside the tank and the flow‐through instruments were fed the same water using a pumping system. We changed the temperature (between 10°C and 28°C) and the seawater p CO 2 (between 250 and 800 μ atm) to observe instrument responses over a wide range. Since there is no reference for surface ocean p CO 2 measurements, we agreed on a set of instruments serving as intercomparison reference. All data from the different instruments were then compared against the intercomparison reference during periods of stable temperature and p CO 2 . The study provides important information to enhance future ocean carbon monitoring networks, but makes no direct recommendation for the use of any specific sensor. A major finding is that equilibration through direct air–water contact appears to be more consistent and independent of external factors than equilibration through a membrane or photometric detection. We found several instruments with no temperature measurements at the location of equilibration or with uncalibrated temperature sensors introducing significant uncertainty in the results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".