MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046219144 · doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.v54i2.15970

Age of the Younger Laxá Lava and Lake Mývatn, Northern Iceland, Determined by AMS Radiocarbon Dating

2012· article· en· W2046219144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ulf Hauptfleisch, Árni Einarsson

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiocarbon · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTephrochronologyRadiocarbon datingAccelerator mass spectrometryLavaGeologyTephraCharcoalAbsolute datingRadiometric datingArchaeologyPhysical geographyPaleontologyGeographyVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lake Mývatn and several smaller lakes in northern Iceland were formed by the large Holocene lava flow of the Younger Laxá Lava (YLL). The age of the YLL was estimated by tephrochronology at 1800–2300 BP (Thorarinsson 1951). Conventional radiocarbon dating of charred vegetation beneath the YLL (Thorarinsson 1964) yielded uncalibrated ages of 1940 ± 270 14C yr BP (Yale), 2110 ± 140 14C yr BP (Copenhagen), and 1990 ± 50 14C yr BP (Winnipeg). Ongoing palcolimnological research at Lake Mývatn requires a more precise age estimation of the YLL. Charcoal samples from beneath the YLL were collected at Presthvammur in 2007 and analyzed by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 14C measurements. The reliability of the conventional 14C ages of the samples Yale, Copenhagen, and Winnipeg was re-evaluated, applying criteria from Pettit et al. (2003) and Graf (2009). The result of AMS 14C measurement (2170 ± 38 cal yr BP) underpins the local tephrochronology and provides a reliable age of the YLL and Lake Mývatn.

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)0.001
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiocarbonSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207