MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016837919 · doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2004.07.005

Wetter or colder during the Last Glacial Maximum? Revisiting the pluvial lake question in southwestern North America

2004· article· en· W2016837919 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten M. Menking, Roger Y. Anderson, Nabil Shafike, Kamran H. Syed, Bruce D. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPluvialPleistocenePrecipitationSurface runoffGeologyStructural basinGlacial periodWater balanceLast Glacial MaximumClimate modelClimate changePhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)ClimatologyGeomorphologyPaleontologyGeographyOceanographyEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Well-preserved shorelines in Estancia basin and a relatively simple hydrologic setting have prompted several inquiries into the basin's hydrologic balance for the purpose of estimating regional precipitation during the late Pleistocene. Estimates have ranged from 86% to 150% of modern, the disparity largely the result of assumptions about past temperatures. In this study, we use an array of models for surface-water runoff, groundwater flow, and lake energy balance to examine previously proposed scenarios for late Pleistocene climate. Constraints imposed by geologic evidence of past lake levels indicate that precipitation for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) may have doubled relative to modern values during brief episodes of colder and wetter climate and that annual runoff was as much as 15% of annual precipitation during these episodes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207