MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502906065 · doi:10.7202/033032ar

Forest Changes in the Great Lakes Region at 5-7 ka BP

2007· article· en· W1502906065 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
T. W. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTsugaBeechEcotoneDeciduousTaigaRange (aeronautics)ForestryGeologyAlderGeographyPhysical geographyEcologyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollen stratigraphy from 90 sites in and bordering the Great Lakes record the 5-7 ka history of forest development of the Great Lakes region. By 7 ka beech (Fagus grandifolia) had invaded the oak-hickory (Quercus-Carya) forest of lower Michigan and hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and beech the white pine (Pinus strobus)-dominated forest of southern Ontario. At the same time, white pine replaced jack pine (P banksiana) as it expanded northward to the Clay Belt beyond its present-day range. Forest changes at 6 and 5 ka were dominated by range extensions of beech and hemlock in a northwesterly direction, by northward expansion of eastern white cedar (Cupressineae), and southward migration of white pine into the Michigan basin. The beech and hemlock migrations (160 m yr-1and 280 m yr-1, respectively) may have been influenced by the cool-moist climate generated by the Nipissing Great Lakes in combination with enhanced regional warming. White pine and eastern white cedar responded to regional warming and reduced precipitation, whereas birch (Betula) and alder (Alnus) may have been influenced more by fire activity caused by the warm-dry climate. The boreal-mixed forest ecotone was displaced 140 km northward at 5-7 ka compared to 60-70 km for the mixed-deciduous forest ecotone.

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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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