High level review of a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Marchetti (1977) was the first to propose using ocean density currents to transport and store anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the deep ocean, ?marine geoengineering? first came to widespread public attention in 1990 when global headlines announced US ocean scientist John Martin idea that ocean fertilization could be used to enhance biological carbon dioxide uptake and storage to counteract carbon dioxide induced\nglobal warming. It came to widespread public attention again in 2007 due to a proposed ocean iron fertilization\nactivity, planned as a commercial venture by Planktos Inc., off the Galapagos Islands. Such ventures have since taken place in the North-East Pacific off Canada and have been planned for the western seaboard of South America off Chile. The Contracting Parties to the London Convention and London Protocol (LC/LP) expressed concern about the marine environmental impacts of the proposed activity off the Galapagos.\nIn 2008 the Parties adopted a resolution deciding that ocean fertilization activities other than legitimate\nscientific research should be considered as contrary to the aims of both instruments. Subsequently, due to\nongoing interest in marine geoengineering, the LP was amended in 2013 to regulate ocean fertilization activities. These amendments also enable the Parties to regulate other marine geoengineering activities within\nthe scope of the LP by listing them in the new Annex 4 of the Protocol. Thus, the LP has a governance framework that potentially can be applied to newly emerging marine geoengineering technologies. Objectives\nIn the light of the growing interest in marine geoengineering techniques and the LP amendment, GESAMP decided that a Working Group (WG) was needed to:\n1 Better understand the potential environmental (and socio-economic) impacts of different marine geoengineering approaches; and\n2 Provide advice to the London Protocol Parties to assist them in identifying those marine geoengineering techniques that it might be sensible to consider for listing in the new Annex 4 of the Protocol. Establishment of WG 41\nThe WG was established and comprised mainly natural scientists with wide-ranging expertise relevant to marine geoengineering, along with a smaller group of experts from economics and political sciences. The preliminary and main findings are reported here.\n
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".