MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043550040 · doi:10.1002/gea.20032

ESR and uranium series dating of teeth from the lower Paleolithic site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel: Confirmation of paleomagnetic age indications

2004· article· en· W2043550040 on OpenAlexaff
W.J. Rink, Henry P. Schwarcz

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoarchaeology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleomagnetismGeologyPaleontologyPleistoceneEnamel paintSeries (stratigraphy)Radiometric datingArchaeologySequence (biology)MineralogyGeographyChemistryDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of tooth enamel and U‐series dating of adjacent dentine was carried out on samples obtained from Layers II‐6 and II‐7 from the lower Paleolithic site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. The combined ESR/U‐series age estimate of these layers was found to be 652 ± 29 ka. The samples were collected about 2–4.5 m above the Brunhes‐Matuyama (B/M) chron boundary at the site. Goren‐Inbar et al. [(2000). Pleistocene milestones on the Out of Africa corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science, 289, 944–947] suggested that the entire sequence formed between 800 and 700 ka. Using their assumed accumulation rate ( compacted sediment) of 0.43 m ka − 1, our samples would have been deposited 775–765 ka. Minimum accumulation rates found in the literature for similar environments suggest the extrapolated age could be as young as 765–750 ka. While our dates lie outside this range, they confirm the assignment of the paleomagnetic transition as the B/M boundary. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoarchaeologySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207