MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W138143574 · doi:10.7202/032638ar

Analyse pollinique et datation 14C de concrétions stalagmitiques holocènes : apports complémentaires des deux méthodes

2007· article· fr· W138143574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Bastin, Michel Gewelt

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les résultats de l'étude palynologique de 5 concrétions de grottes de Belgique sont comparés avec 15 analyses 14C. Cette comparaison montre que la correction des âges 14C apparents avec un facteur de dilution q = 0,85 fournit une très bonne concordance avec les âges déterminés sur base des successions des groupements végétaux. Au sein de la séquence pollinique couvrant la totalité de l'Holocène, une excellente concordance entre la palynologie et les datations 14C corrigées a été obtenue pour les phases d'évolution de la végétation suivantes : transition Préboréal-Boréal, début et fin de l'Atlantique, extension C III de Corylus au Subboréal et extension F III de Fagus au Subatlantique. L'extension de Tilia coïncide avec le début de l'Atlantique et peut se poursuivre jusqu'au Subatlantique. Cette nouvelle méthode indirecte d'estimation de l'activité 14C initiale (A0) des concrétions conduit à proposer l'adoption provisoire de A0 = 85 ± 5 % de « carbone moderne » pour la correction des âges 14C apparents des concrétions stalagmitiques développées durant l'Holocène en Belgique. Trois datations 230Th/234U ont en outre été réalisées pour comparaison et relais avec les datations 14C.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207