MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099903644

A seventytwo-year record of diminishing deep-water oxygen in the St. Lawrence estuary: the northwest Atlantic connection. Limnology and Oceanography

2005· article· en· W7099903644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater massHypoxia (environmental)Bottom waterLimnologyOxygenEstuarySedimentWater columnSeawater
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxygen concentrations in the bottom waters of the Lower St. Lawrence estuary (LSLE) decreased from 125 mmol L21 (37.7 % saturation) in the 1930s to an average of 65 mmol L21 (20.7 % saturation) for the 1984–2003 period. A concurrent 1.658C warming of the bottom water from the 1930s to the 1980s suggests that changes in the relative proportions of cold, fresh, oxygen-rich Labrador Current Water (LCW) and warm, salty, oxygen-poor North Atlantic Central Water (NACW) in the water mass entering the Laurentian Channel probably played a role in the oxygen depletion. We estimate that about one half to two thirds of the oxygen loss in the bottom waters of the LSLE can be attributed to a decreased proportion of LCW. This leaves between one third and one half of the oxygen decrease to be explained by causes other than changes in water mass composition. An increase in the along-channel oxygen gradient from Cabot Strait to the LSLE over the past decades, combined with data from sediment cores, suggests that increased sediment oxygen demand may be partly responsible for the remainder of the oxygen decline. In July 2003, approximately 1,300 km2 of seafloor in the LSLE was bathed in hypoxic water (,62.5 mmol L21). Severe hypoxia is a condition that occurs in the water

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)0.000
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 score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→