MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030697486 · doi:10.1006/qres.2001.2239

Holocene Vegetation Dynamics of Anticosti Island, Québec, and Consequences of Remoteness on Ecological Succession

2001· article· en· W2030697486 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Martin Lavoie, Louise Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcological successionVegetation (pathology)Abies balsameaPollenEcologyDeciduousTaigaBlack spruceAlderPaleoecologyGeographyBalsamGeologyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The postglacial vegetation history of Anticosti Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Québec, was reconstructed from pollen analysis of three sites, providing the first paleoecological data for the island. The earliest plant communities (8550–7770 14 C yr B.P.; 9500–8500 cal yr B.P.) were characterized by a high representation of green alder ( Alnus crispa ), indicating an open environment with sparse spruce ( Picea ). Between 7770 and 3700 14 C yr B.P. (8500–4000 cal yr B.P.), the island was colonized by mixed deciduous and coniferous forests dominated by paper birch ( Betula papyrifera ) and spruce. A major increase in the abundance of balsam fir ( Abies balsamea ) occurred ca. 3700 14 C yr B.P. (4000 cal yr B.P.), indicating development of the closed fir–spruce forests as they exist today. The island's remoteness from continental seed plant sources influenced plant colonization, afforestation, and ecological succession. The Gulf of St. Lawrence slowed plant migration, and tree species had to spread from the Gaspé Peninsula. Repeated drops in fir pollen percentages during the last 4,000 years may reflect the activity of defoliating insects.

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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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