MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036772123 · doi:10.1130/g22814a.1

Mass mortality following disturbance in Holocene coral reefs from Papua New Guinea

2006· article· en· W2036772123 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Pandolfi, Alexander W. Tudhope, George S. Burr, John Chappell, Evan Edinger, Melissa A. Frey, Robert S. Steneck, Charu Sharma, A. Yeates, Michael D. Jennions, Halard L. Lescinsky, Anthony Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoral reefReefGeographyNew guineaHistoryOceanographyArchaeologyGeologyEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency and intensity of disturbance on living coral reefs have been accelerating for the past few decades, resulting in a changed seascape. What is unclear but vital for management is whether this acceleration is natural or coincident only with recent human impact. We surveyed nine uplifted early to mid-Holocene (11,000-3700 calendar [cal] yr B.P.) fringing and barrier reefs along ∼27 km at the Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea. We found evidence for several episodes of coral mass mortality, but frequency was <1 in 1500 yr. The most striking mortality event extends >16 km along the ancient coastline, occurred ca. 9100-9400 cal yr B.P., and is associated with a volcanic ash horizon. Recolonization of the reef surface and resumption of vertical reef accretion was rapid (<100 yr), but the post-disturbance reef communities contrasted with their pre-disturbance counterparts. Assessing the frequency, nature, and long-term ecological consequences of mass-mortality events in fossil coral reefs may provide important insights to guide management of modern reefs in this time of environmental degradation and change.

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)0.000
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207