MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Climatic control of peat erosion in a North Wales blanket mire

2001· article· en· W1998660574 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Ellis, John Tallis

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMirePeatHoloceneRadiocarbon datingPhysical geographyGeologyMacrofossilErosionEcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeologyPaleontologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This study investigates the palaeoecology of a hummock‐and‐hollow complex from a partially eroded upland blanket mire at the Migneint, north Wales, UK. Three peat cores were collected and analysed for pollen and botanical macrofossils, two for peat humification and a third was radiocarbon‐dated. In the interpretation of the palaeoecological record particular attention was paid to the ecology of the moss Racomitrium lanuginosum. We delimit two periods in the development of the hummock‐hollow complex: an earlier period of climatically controlled blanket‐mire development; and a later period of mire erosion (initiated between c. 2000 and 1350 Cal. year BP) when ‘natural’ climatically controlled mire development was modified by excessive drying of the mire surface. The data support recent studies in suggesting that the development of British blanket mires is sensitive to climate change. However, climatically controlled blanket‐mire development appears to have been pre‐empted at the Migneint by the development of the erosion‐complex, the initiation of which coincides with the zenith of an extensive deforestation during the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and Romano‐British periods.

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)0.001
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207