MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598648717 · doi:10.7202/033034ar

Vegetation and Climate of Maritime Canada 6000 Years BP: A Synthesis

2007· article· en· W1598648717 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Hélène Jetté, Robert J. Mott

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsTsugaDeciduousVegetation (pathology)TaigaBorealGeographyForestryPhysical geographyEcologyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental conditions (vegetation and climate) of Maritime Canada are reconstructed as a regional contribution to a national synthesis on the paleoenvironment of Canada 6000 yr BP. Ten new sites, including three complete sequences and seven short sequences bracketing the 6 ka period, are added to the existing pollen dataset for this region. The vegetation prevalent 6000 yr BP in New Brunswick was a mixed coniferous-deciduous forest with pine, mostly white pine (Pinus strobus) in the northwest, and a mixed coniferous-deciduous forest with hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) in the south and southeast. In the northwest, fir (Abies) replaced pine at high elevations and a boreal forest grew on the New Brunswick Highlands. The dominant vegetation at 6000 yr BP in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia was a mixed coniferous-deciduous forest with hemlock dominating. Cape Breton Island was covered by a mixed coniferous-deciduous forest with pine and/or fir, except for the southern part of the Island where hemlock was probably present. Analysis of the fossil sites indicate that a warm-dry period influenced the composition of the vegetation 6000 yr BP.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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