MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1820622915 · doi:10.1029/2003gl018619

Cold‐water coral mounds: Evidence for early Holocene climate change and slope failure

2004· article· en· W1820622915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. M. O’Reilly, P. W. Readman, P. M. Shannon

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHoloceneCoralOceanographyBefore PresentPopulationPhysical geographyLast Glacial MaximumDeglaciationPeriod (music)Glacial periodPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cold‐water coral mounds occur in discrete clustered populations over a broad region from the glaciated Norwegian continental margins to the non‐glaciated margins of Iberia and northwest Africa. Here we report on an interesting correlation between the Holocene growth of a mound population west of Ireland and early Holocene paleoclimatic variations in the North Atlantic region, notably the well documented ‘8,200 yr cold event’. An age structure for the population is calculated from growth rate estimates for the coral framework constructor Lophelia pertusa and a previously formulated population growth model. The model growth curve for the Holocene period fits the observed data well, except for a significant deflection in the data trend at about 8,500 calendar years ago. This corresponds to the time that the glacial lakes Agassiz and Ojibway, which were once dammed by a remnant of the Laurentide ice sheet, drained catastrophically into the Labrador Sea and triggered the ‘8,200 yr event’. This cold period may also have played a role in triggering major submarine landslides, such as the Storegga Slide.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→