Mapped patterns in sediment samples of modern pollen from southeastern Canada and northeastern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isopoll maps based on 173 modern-pollen samples illustrate the geographical patterns of 12 pollen types within a 600,000 sq. km area centered in southern Québec. The mapped patterns reflect several scales of vegetational pattern that ranges from the major regional change between conifer-hardwood forest and boreal forest down to the minor local differences in vegetation between nearby sites.Piceaand other arboreal pollen types are most representative of the regional patterns, whereas Cyperaceae and Ericaceae pollen often vary markedly between adjacent sites. Further analysis of these pollen data explored how much differences in sediment type and variations in analyst practices among the samples can affect the sensitivity of the pollen data to certain of the vegetational patterns. The set of 173 samples was divided into three subsets, two of which differ in sediment types and two of which differ in analyst practices. The distributions of pollen types are then correlated between the contrasting subsets, and their principal components are compared. These results show that only small differences exist among the subsets in their portrayal of the major vegetational patterns, but marked differences appear in the record of certain minor patterns.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".