MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1678992145 · doi:10.7202/032523ar

Les diatomées de la mer de Goldthwait dans la région de Rivière-du-Loup, Québec

2007· article· fr· W1678992145 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Guy Lortie

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiatoms and Algae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaviculaHumanitiesBiologyArtGeographyDiatomForestryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les sédiments de la mer de Goldthwait de la région de Rivière-du-Loup ont livré une flore de diatomées subarctique comprenant 41 genres et 131 taxons. Cette micro-flore fossile se distingue de la flore actuelle par la rareté des espèces dulcicoles planctoniques, par l'abondance des formes polyhalobes méioeuryhalines et par le nombre restreint (32) de taxons communs. Les basses teneurs en valves des dépôts étudiés (<1 x 106valves par gramme) résultent surtout d'une biomasse médiocre accentuée par une forte sédimentation détritique. Un premier assemblage à Stephanopyxis turris var. intermedia et Coscinodiscus sp. 1 est attribué aux eaux profondes et salées de la phase pléni-marine. Le deuxième assemblage, défini par Cocconeis scutellum var. stauroneiformis, C. costata, Nitzschia cylindrus et Chaetoceros sp. 1 (soie), indique un milieu littoral et suggère que des conditions régressives moins profondes et moins salées ont pu prévaloir vers 10 500 ans BP. Le dernier assemblage marin à C. costata, Cyclotella caspia et C. scutellum var. stauroneiformis correspond à un milieu saumâtre et peu profond qui a pu exister localement durant la phase régressive. Les quelques diatomées tourbicoles relevées dans des sédiments marins suggère enfin une installation de la flore continentale dès 10 500 ans 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)0.000
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicDiatoms and Algae ResearchFrench-language works237,207