MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026925381 · doi:10.1029/2005jd006031

Millennial‐scale temperature variations in North America during the Holocene

2006· article· en· W2026925381 on OpenAlexafffund
André Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Michael Sawada, P. Fines

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHoloceneClimatologyPaleoclimatologyGeologyTemperature recordClimate changeGlacial periodHolocene climatic optimumOrbital forcingPhysical geographyLast Glacial MaximumForcing (mathematics)OceanographyGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mean continental July temperature reconstruction based on pollen records from across North America quantifies temperature variations of several timescales for the past 14,000 cal yr BP. In North America, temperatures increased nearly 4°C during the late glacial, reaching maximum values between 6000 and 3000 cal yr BP, after which mean July temperatures decreased. Superimposed on this orbital‐scale trend are millennial‐scale temperature variations that appear coherent in structure and frequency with high‐resolution ice, marine and other terrestrial paleoclimate records of the Holocene. During the Holocene, climate in North America appears to have varied periodically every ∼1100 years rather than the ∼1500 year cycle found during the last glacial period. Coherence at frequencies between 900 and 1100 years between land, ice, and ocean records suggests a common forcing associated with widespread surface impacts during the Holocene. These results provide important insight to the global warming debate, as the observed twentieth century temperature increase appears unprecedented compared to our mean North American temperature reconstruction of the past 14,000 years.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations246
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207