MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1953797851 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2015-0033

Ice-proximal Labrador Sea Heinrich layers: a sedimentological approach

2015· article· en· W1953797851 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Reinhard Hesse

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTerrigenous sedimentOceanographyIce sheetSedimentary depositional environmentSea iceForaminiferaDebrisIcebergPaleontologyGeomorphologyGeochemistrySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During Late Pleistocene Heinrich events (H-events), distinct, decimetre- to centimetre-thick layers of ice-rafted debris (IRD) were deposited in the North Atlantic as Heinrich layers (H-layers). These layers are characterized by high detrital carbonate content, low foraminifera content, a high percentage of Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (sinistral) among the planktonic foraminifera, high magnetic susceptibility, and high grey colour values. In contrast, H-layers in the Labrador Sea reach metre thickness at core sites proximal to the iceberg source off the Hudson Strait ice stream (HSIS), and show low magnetic susceptibility and relatively low grey levels on the colour scale. To provide the reader with some background information, four hypotheses concerning the origin of H-events are discussed at the outset: (1) the binge–purge (internal forcing) model, (2) the subglacial outburst flood model, (3) the external forcing model, and (4) the catastrophic ice shelf breakup model. The higher thickness of ice-proximal H-layers is due to the supply of large amounts of terrigenous sediments that were eroded from country rocks underlying the northeastern sector of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS). These sediments were transported to the deep Labrador Sea by the efficient processes of bottom-following mass and surface plume movement, where they mixed with ice-rafted sediment. Four distinct depositional facies of H-layers (Types I to IV) have been identified: Type I H-layers occur within 300 km from the presumed HSIS terminus and consist of stacked thin layers of graded muds containing IRD. The graded muds that are spiked with IRD are the result of deposition of fine-grained sediment from lofting sediment columns that collected dropstones and grains under the iceberg route. Type II H-layers occur on the slope and rise at a greater distance south of the Hudson Strait outlet, on the levees of tributary canyons to the Northwest Atlantic Mid-Ocean Channel (NAMOC). These layers consist of alternating thin mud turbidites with intercalated laminae of IRD. Type III H-layers exist on the levees of the main channel of the NAMOC, and consist of layers of IRD alternating with fewer fine-grained spillover turbidites, reflecting the lower spillover frequency from the deep channel compared to the less deep slope canyons. Type IV H-layers are made up of bioturbated hemipelagic muds with IRD, and occur in regions between canyons not reached by spillover turbidity currents, and in distal regions of the open ocean or on seamounts. The anomalously high thickness of individual H-layers on the slope and rise off Hudson Strait is explained by the transport of significant portions of H-layer sediment by suspended sediment columns lofted from sand-carrying freshwater turbidity currents (Type I), and by low density turbidity currents (Types II and III). Isopach maps for H-layers 1–3 give hints of the drift routes of the lofted suspended sediment during its ascent to the surface, and of iceberg drift directions in the Labrador Sea.

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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research→French-language works237,207→