MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024740145 · doi:10.1006/qres.2002.2387

Comparison of the Climate during Marine Isotope Stage 9 and 11 Inferred from a Speleothem Isotope Record from Northern Norway

2002· article· en· W2024740145 on OpenAlexaff
I. M. Berstad, Joyce Lundberg, Stein‐Erik Lauritzen, Henriette Linge

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsStalagmiteSpeleothemGeologyInterglacialCalciteIsotopes of oxygenHoloceneIsotopeCaveMarine isotope stageGlacial periodPeriod (music)Paleontologyδ18OLoessStable isotope ratioOceanographyGeochemistryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A stalagmite from northern Norway is dated with 12 thermal ionization mass spectrometry U-Th dates, and at least four separate growth periods are identified that correspond with marine isotope stages 9, 11, 13, and probably 15. The calcite is tested for isotopic equilibrium with the Hendy test. Oxygen isotope measurements on 231 subsamples on a vertical transect are used as a paleotemperature proxy. The detailed isotopic record from MIS 9 show apparent similarities to a Holocene record from the same cave, both in the climatic evolution and the overall temperatures: both show temperature oscillations changing from high-frequency, low-amplitude cycles in the beginning of the interglacial period to lower frequency, higher amplitude cycles in the later part of the interglacial period. The isotope record from MIS 11 shows a distinct isotopic event toward heavier values. The isotopic record together with the porous, humus-rich calcite are interpreted as indicating a warmer than present interglacial period with several episodes of heavy rainfall.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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