Potential Pitfalls of Pollen Dating
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 137Cs and 210Pb profiles. Pollen dates from 2 additional wetlands were compared with 14C dates of botanical macrofossils. Most pollen dates disagree with 14C 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 14C 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 14C 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.
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 | 0.129 | 0.301 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".