MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007689764 · doi:10.1890/060162

From controversy to consensus: making the case for recent climate change in the Arctic using lake sediments

2007· review· en· W2007689764 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Smol, Marianne S. V. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeArcticPaleolimnologyEcosystemEcologyEnvironmental scienceGlobal warmingEnvironmental changeHabitatDiatomThe arcticAquatic ecosystemPhysical geographyOceanographyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We live in a constantly changing environment, yet tracking ecological change is often very difficult. Long-term monitoring data are frequently lacking and are especially sparse from Arctic ecosystems, where logistical difficulties limit most monitoring programs. Fortunately, lake and pond sediments contain important archives of past limnological communities that can be used to reconstruct environmental change. Here, we summarize some of the paleolimnological studies that have documented recent climate warming in Arctic lakes and ponds. Several hypotheses have been evaluated to determine if warming, resulting in changes in ice cover and related variables (eg increased habitat availability), was the factor most strongly influencing recent diatom and other biotic changes. Striking and often unprecedented community changes were evident in post-1850 sediments, and could be linked to ecological shifts consistent with warming. Because future temperature increases are predicted to be greatly amplified in polar regions, the ecological integrity of these sensitive ecosystems will be further imperiled.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations272
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207