Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biogeochemical sensor performance in the SOCCOM profiling float array

Open access
Johnson, Kenneth S., Plant, Joshua N., Coletti, Luke J., Jannasch, Hans W., Sakamoto, Carole M., Riser, Stephen C., Swift, Dana D., Williams, Nancy L., Boss, Emmanuel, Haëntjens, Nils, Talley, Lynne D., Sarmiento, Jorge L.·2017·Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans

Abstract

The Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling (SOCCOM) program has begun deploying a large array of biogeochemical sensors on profiling floats in the Southern Ocean. As of February 2016, 86 floats have been deployed. Here the focus is on 56 floats with quality‐controlled and adjusted data that have been in the water at least 6 months. The floats carry oxygen, nitrate, pH, chlorophyll fluorescence, and optical backscatter sensors. The raw data generated by these sensors can suffer from inaccurate initial calibrations and from sensor drift over time. Procedures to correct the data are defined. The initial accuracy of the adjusted concentrations is assessed by comparing the corrected data to laboratory measurements made on samples collected by a hydrographic cast with a rosette sampler at the float deployment station. The long‐term accuracy of the corrected data is compared to the GLODAPv2 data set whenever a float made a profile within 20 km of a GLODAPv2 station. Based on these assessments, the fleet average oxygen data are accurate to 1 ± 1%, nitrate to within 0.5 ± 0.5 µmol kg−1, and pH to 0.005 ± 0.007, where the error limit is 1 standard deviation of the fleet data. The bio‐optical measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence and optical backscatter are used to estimate chlorophyll a and particulate organic carbon concentration. The particulate organic carbon concentrations inferred from optical backscatter appear accurate to with 35 mg C m−3 or 20%, whichever is larger. Factors affecting the accuracy of the estimated chlorophyll a concentrations are evaluated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2017jc012838

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, K. S., Plant, J. N., Coletti, L. J., Jannasch, H. W., Sakamoto, C. M., Riser, S. C., Swift, D. D., Williams, N. L., Boss, E., Haëntjens, N., Talley, L. D., & Sarmiento, J. L.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
Published
2017-08
Volume
122
Issue
8
Pages
6416-6436
ISSN
  • 2169-9275 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-9291
OpenAlex
W2728429067
Cited by
300
References
52
FWCI
18.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biogeochemical sensor performance in the SOCCOM profiling float array. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/2017jc012838
The paper
Johnson, K. S., Plant, J. N., Coletti, L. J., Jannasch, H. W., Sakamoto, C. M., Riser, S. C., Swift, D. D., Williams, N. L., Boss, E., Haëntjens, N., Talley, L. D., & Sarmiento, J. L. (2017). Biogeochemical sensor performance in the SOCCOM profiling float array. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jc012838

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.