MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037618660 · doi:10.1002/jqs.1419

Deglacial reservoir age and implications, Foxe Peninsula, Baffin Island

2010· article· en· W2037618660 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kayla J. Vickers, Brent Ward, D J Utting, Alice M. Telka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quaternary Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of EnergySimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, Irvine
KeywordsDeglaciationMacrofossilRadiocarbon datingGeologyStructural basinPeninsulaPhysical geographyArcticOceanographyHolocenePaleontologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marine reservoir age is reported for Foxe Basin, Canada, during deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Radiocarbon ( 14 C) measurements were made on pairs of contemporaneous molluscs and Salix (willow) macrofossils, yielding a mean marine reservoir age of 985 ± 10 14 C a. Mean regional Δ R is calculated to be 615 ± 20 14 C a relative to a mean global reservoir age of ca. 400 14 C a. Previous studies in the Canadian Arctic that have been conducted on modern pre‐bomb molluscs give Δ R values of ca. 100–300 14 C a. The difference between modern and deglacial reservoir ages indicates that Δ R in Foxe Basin has changed over time, which has implications for the reconstruction of past events based on marine 14 C dates. We recalculate the timing of deglaciation of Hudson Strait with this new reservoir age and relate this to the 8.2 cal. ka event. We recommend that local Δ R be determined for the time period being examined whenever possible, and that in cases where this is impossible a Δ R value of 615 14 C a be applied when calibrating marine samples from Foxe Basin and vicinity during deglaciation. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quaternary ScienceSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207