MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027015787

Automated Measurements of Gas Exchange in Wetlands

2021· other· en· W7027015787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWomen's cancer prevention and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneFlux (metallurgy)Natural gasConvectionTRACERDiffusionWetlandHydrology (agriculture)Natural convection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetlands are the largest natural producer of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. One way in which dissolved methane can be emitted from wetlands is via hydrodynamic transport. This transport pathway includes stirring and bulk motion in the water column as well as diffusion near the air-water interface. It is driven by sources of near-surface turbulence, such as natural convection (e.g. temperature-driven stirring) and forced convection (e.g. wind shear, precipitation, honami). Relative to other methane transport pathways in wetlands, hydrodynamic transport has been understudied and its contributions to total methane flux have been underestimated.We developed a low-cost, autonomous, and programmable underwater camera to measure water velocity in wetlands. We used this camera in a model wetland to correlate gas exchange across the air-water interface to water-side velocity statistics. Our results found a positive quadratic relationship with a non-zero intercept between the standard deviation of vertical velocity and the normalized gas transfer velocity (k600). This camera was then deployed in Burns Bog outside of Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in order to estimate the site's methane flux due to hydrodynamic transport. Using water-side velocity statistics to calculate k600, we found that hydrodynamic transport was responsible for approximately 17.2% of total methane flux in Burns Bog; this percentage varied very little throughout the day. Finally, we compare a heat-flux-based method for estimating k600 against our water-velocity-based approach. We found that the heat-flux-based method had consistently lower estimates for k600 and gas flux relative to the water-velocity-based approach. This was because the heat flux data only captured stirring due to natural convection whereas the water-velocity-based approach included both natural and forced convection.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicWomen's cancer prevention and managementFrench-language works237,207