MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003963097 · doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2012.10.003

TT-OSL dating of Longyadong Middle Paleolithic site and paleoenvironmental implications for hominin occupation in Luonan Basin (central China)

2012· article· en· W2003963097 on OpenAlexaff
Xuefeng Sun, Huayu Lu, Shejiang Wang, Shuangwen Yi, Chen Shen, Wenchao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeologyCaveLoessPaleosolPleistoceneInterglacialPaleontologyStructural basinMarine isotope stageGlacial periodArchaeologyChinaGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dating middle Pleistocene hominin occupations alongside the reconstruction of paleoenvironments in China between 700 and 100 ka has always been a challenging task. In this paper, we report thermally transferred optically stimulated luminescence (TT-OSL) dating results for a Middle Paleolithic site in the Luonan Basin, central China, which we have named Longyadong Cave. The results suggest that the age of cave infilling and the deposition of sediments outside the cave range between 389 ± 18 and 274 ± 14 ka. These deposits are stratigraphically and geochronologically correlated with the L4 loess and S3 paleosol units of the typical loess–paleosol sequence of the Chinese Loess Plateau, and with Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) 10 to 9, respectively. On the basis of these new ages and the available paleoenvironmental data, it is suggested that the Longyadong hominins might have occupied the site both in glacial and interglacial periods, demonstrating that they coped well with environmental change in this mountainous region in warm/wet and cold/dry climates. The study further implies that the hominins abandoned the Longyadong Cave between 274 ± 14 and 205 ± 19 ka, when it was sealed by alluvial and slope deposits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207