Evidence for a hardwater radiocarbon dating effect, Wonder Lake, Denali national park and preserve, Alaska, U.S.A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anderson et al. (1994) present a late Pleistocene/Holocene pollen record for lacustrine sediment cores retrieved from the north end of Wonder Lake, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Bulk radiocarbon age estimates obtained during their study suggest that either a Picea refugium persisted in the foothills of the north Alaska Range near Wonder Lake during the Late Wisconsinan, or that bulk radiocarbon age estimates are inaccurate. Subsequent cores recovered from Wonder Lake (and a near-by kettle pond) have been correlated to the Anderson et al. core and age dated using Atomic Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon age estimates. AMS radiocarbon ages suggest that bulk radiocarbon ages from Anderson et al. (1994) are affected by hardwater conditions in Wonder Lake causing them to appear greater than 2000 14 C years too old. The corrected core chronology is consistent with documented regional vegetation changes during the glacial/interglacial transition and does not require a local Picea refugium in the Wonder Lake area during the Late Wisconsinan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".