MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963808624 · doi:10.3354/meps301129

Radiocarbon evidence for annual growth rings in the deep-sea octocoral Primnoa resedaeformis

2005· article· en· W1963808624 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Owen A. Sherwood, DB Scott, MJ Risk, T. P. Guilderson

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Ecology Progress Series · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsRadiocarbon datingAccelerator mass spectrometryOceanographyCalciteArchaeologyGeologyGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The deep-sea gorgonian octocoral Primnoa resedaeformis is distributed throughout the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at depths of 65 to 3200 m. It has a 2-part skeleton of calcite and gorgonin. Towards the inside of the axial skeleton gorgonin and calcite are deposited in concentric growth rings, similar to tree rings. Colonies were collected from the NE Channel (NW Atlantic Ocean, southwest of Nova Scotia, Canada) from depths of 250 to 475 m. Radiocarbon was measured in individual rings isolated from sections of each colony, after dissolution of calcite. Each 14 C measurement was paired with a ring age determined by 3 amateur ring counters. The precision of ring counts averaged better than 2 yr. Accurate reconstruction of 20th century bomb-radiocarbon showed that (1) the growth rings are formed annually, (2) the gorgonin is derived from surface particulate organic matter (POM) and (3) useful environmental data are recorded in the organic endoskeletons of deep-sea octocorals. These results support the use of P. resedaeformis as a long-term, high resolution monitor of ocean surface conditions, particularly in temperate and boreal environments where proxy data are lacking.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations88
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Ecology Progress SeriesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207