MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417525729 · doi:10.1029/2025gl118618

Ocean Outgassing of Methyl Chloroform as an Underestimated Source of Emission

2025· article· en· W4417525729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peidong Wang, Susan Solomon, Jeffery R. Scott, S. A. Yvon‐Lewis, P. O. Wennberg, Ray F. Weiss, Matthew Rigby, Minde An

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOutgassingSink (geography)TRACERChloroformCarbon dioxideAtmospheric chemistryAtmosphere (unit)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Methyl chloroform (MCF) is an ozone‐depleting substance used as an industrial solvent. Its primary sink is oxidation by the hydroxyl radical (OH), making it a key tracer for estimating atmospheric oxidative capacity. Following Montreal Protocol regulations, MCF emissions declined rapidly after the 1990s. However, the recent atmospheric MCF decay suggests persistent emissions and/or declining OH (contradicting chemistry‐climate models projecting increasing or stable OH). The air‐sea exchange of MCF has been poorly constrained due to limited observations and simplified ocean representations. We simulate oceanic MCF fluxes using a modern ocean reanalysis and validate with depth‐resolved observations. Results suggest the ocean has shifted from a net sink to a net source around 2005, outgassing 0.5 Gg yr −1 in the 2010s (up to 30% of inferred MCF emissions). This ocean outgassing is an order of magnitude larger than previous estimates, and accounts for up to a third of the model‐observation discrepancy in OH.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→