MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416333776 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2026.2660361

Changes in Oceanic Carbon Storage Due to Anthropogenic Carbon Input Over the Past Three Decades

2025· article· en· W4416333776 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Varvara Zemskova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUnited Nations Development Programme
KeywordsOcean gyreCarbon sinkClimate changeSink (geography)Global warmingOcean heat contentPacific oceanOcean currentCarbon cycleTRACER

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the ocean is known to be an important sink for anthropogenic CO2 emissions, assessing trends in ocean’s uptake and storage of atmospheric CO2 is complicated because changes in the ocean dissolvedinorganic carbon (DIC) concentrations due to natural ocean circulation patterns and flux of anthropogenic CO2 need to be disentangled. In this study, we analyze the interannual and decadal changes in the ocean anthropogenic DIC storage from 1992 to 2022 using data from the physically and biogeochem-ically consistent ECCO-Darwin ocean state estimate model. We use the quasi-conservative tracer C∗ to represent the ocean anthropogenic DIC concentrations and offer several key extensions to previous studies: (1) a longer period of analysis (three decades), (2) analysis including the Arctic Ocean, (3) regular spatio-temporal coverage using annually-averaged data to more accurately estimate the rates of change of C∗. Over the 1992–2022 period, we estimate a total global ocean C∗ increase of 60 Pg C, corresponding to about 28% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions during this time. The general temporal trend shows a nonlinear increase with accelerating rates of anthropogenic DIC accumulation especially in the last two decades (2002 − 2022), though a slowdown in the increasing rates is found in some parts of the ocean, in particular in high-nutrient low-chlorophyll regions. Empirical Orthogonal Function analysis of the vertically-integrated rates of change of C∗ reveals that the top four modes of interannual variability correspond to the Pacific climate modes, such as El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and North Pacific Gyre Oscillation.

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)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine and coastal ecosystems→French-language works237,207→