Comparison of pollen and conifer stomates as indicators of alpine treeline in northwestern Canadian lake sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare fossil pollen and stomate assemblages in 29 lake sediment surface samples from mountainous regions in northwestern Canada to characterize the relationship between modern vegetation, and pollen and stomate deposition. Modern pollen spectra were dominated by arboreal taxa originating from lower elevation sites. Pinus pollen frequently reached 30% of the pollen sum, regardless of elevation. Alpine-tundra vegetation has lower pollen abundance, even in the alpine-tundra zone, where it dominates the sparse vegetation cover. Fossil stomates were observed in all but one site where trees currently exist in the vicinity of the lake, while no stomates were found in the sediments from alpine-tundra sites. The highest concentration of stomates occurred in lake sediments from closed-canopy forested areas. Our data suggest that different boreal forest types may be differentiated based on pollen assemblages and that the presence of stomates clearly distinguishes vegetation zones dominated by arboreal vegetation from alpine-tundra zones where trees are not present.Key words: pollen, conifer stomates, treeline, Pacific Northwest.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".