Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollen extracted from ocean and wetland sediments cored from the eastern Canadian Margin, James Bay region, and Atlantic provinces of Canada have been radiocarbon dated and results are reported here. Pollen dates from ocean sediments were compared with marine carbonate (mollusk shells or foraminifera) dates from the same core levels, dates for which validity was assessed via correlations with other cores, and for which reworking has been excluded. Pollen samples from 3 tidal wetlands were taken from levels dated with 137 Cs and 210 Pb profiles. Pollen dates from 2 additional wetlands were compared with 14 C dates of botanical macrofossils. Most pollen dates disagree with 14 C dates based on macrofossils or carbonates, with age differences typically exceeding 250 yr and reaching 4000 yr in one instance. In some cores, pollen dates show age reversals. Significant proportions of reworked pollen grains in ocean and wetland samples are associated with pollen dates that are too old. Prolonged core storage could result in pollen 14 C ages that are too young, possibly because of growth of fungi or other microbes, but more work is needed to verify this hypothesis. Despite the problems we encountered, some pollen dates are consistent with other 14 C dates from the same core levels, suggesting this dating method can work, but at present, more work is needed to understand the conflicting results obtained.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 it