MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1880744938 · doi:10.1017/s003382220004282x

Radiocarbon Marine Reservoir Ages in the Northwestern Pacific Off Hokkaido Island, Japan, During the Last Deglacial Period

2007· article· en· W1880744938 on OpenAlexaff
Ken’ichi Ohkushi, Masao Uchida, Kaori Aoki, Minoru Yoneda, Ken Ikehara, Kayo Minoshima, Hodaka Kawahata, Ryuji Tada, Masafumi Murayama, Yasuyuki Shibata

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJST-Mirai ProgramJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingGeologyDeglaciationTephraHoloceneForaminiferaPeriod (music)OceanographyUpwellingSedimentVolcanoPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured radiocarbon ages of planktic foraminifera in 4 sediment cores from the northwestern Pacific region off northern Japan in order to estimate marine reservoir ages during the B⊘lling-Aller⊘d period. The ages of deglacial tephra markers from 2 Japanese source volcanoes identified in these sediment cores had been previously estimated from 14 C ages of terrestrial charcoal and buried forests. By comparing the foraminiferal and tephra ages, we estimated the surface water reservoir age during the B⊘lling-Aller⊘d period to be ∼1000 yr or more in the region off northern Japan. The deglacial reservoir ages were more than 200 yr higher than the Holocene values of ∼800 yr. The older deglacial ages may have been caused by active upwelling of deep water during the last deglaciation and the consequent mixing of “older” deep water with “younger” surface waters.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiocarbonSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207