MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568959237 · doi:10.1002/grl.50182

Relative sea level variations in the Chukchi region ‐ Arctic Ocean ‐ since the late Eocene

2013· article· en· W1568959237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Hegewald, Wilfried Jokat

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyArcticPaleontologyOceanographyCanada BasinStructural basinSea level

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Relative sea level (RSL) variations are a result of tectonic activity, changing of the water volume in ocean basins (e.g. due to increasing/decreasing of ice volume, evaporation) and variations in regional to global climate, which influence erosional processes and material transport. We present multi‐channel seismic data combined with dated sediment horizons from the Chukchi Shelf, Arctic Ocean. Based on a series of prograding sequences in the upper 4 km of sediments and the method of seismic sequence stratigraphy, we introduce the first RSL curve for the Chukchi region, beginning in the late Eocene (40 Ma). The comparison of the Chukchi RSL curve with the global RSL curve shows that RSL lowering events in the Chukchi region do not correlate with global events for the Eocene/Oligocene ‐ early Miocene. Between the Eocene/Oligocene and the late Oligocene, the Chukchi RSL variations were small (< 100 m). Since the late Oligocene the Chukchi RSL increased until the opening of the Fram Strait in the early Miocene. We show that the Chukchi RSL variations are representative for the Arctic Ocean, and conclude that the Arctic Ocean was an isolated basin for the Eocene/Oligocene ‐ early Miocene.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207