Records of geomagnetic secular variation since 1200 AD and the potential for chronological control of lake sediments in northern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assess whether absolutely aged declination changes can be used to date recent, massive lake sediments at the sub-century scale. Three issues limiting such studies are addressed: recovery of undisturbed recent lake sediments, assessment of the reliability of the geomagnetic record, and the comparison of lake-sediment records with historic records. A 793-year long geomagnetic chronology was obtained from the annually laminated sediment of Rainbow Lake A. Sediment disturbance was minimized by freezing the sediment in situ and maintaining this state for geomagnetic analyses. Geomagnetic chronologies ca. 600 years long from the massive sediments of Fariya Lake and Ninisith Lake were collected in removable plastic tubes using a piston-corer. Sediment disturbance was minimized by ex situ draining of water from the plastic tubes. The reliability of the geomagnetic record was assessed using a measure of internal coherence with an absolute cutoff of 15°. By further separating the samples at coherence values of 5° and 7.5°, it was possible to identify zones of disturbance and reduced compaction. The most reliable samples had a high magnetic intensity due to high inputs of magnetic minerals, sediment compression, and inputs of stable magnetic minerals. Neither freezing nor dewatering of the sediments appeared to decrease reliability of the geomagnetic record. The declination chronology from the annually laminated sediments was significantly correlated with a 230-year long historical record from Churchill, Manitoba, and with the massive lake sediment chronology from Fariya Lake. Geomagnetic dating was not possible, however, because of the large amplitude in the annually laminated sediment declination record, the large number of years of sediment in many specimens, and the lack of reliability for samples that contain few years of sediment per specimen.
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".