MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048201145 · doi:10.1139/e01-002

Historical rates of salt marsh accretion on the outer Bay of Fundy

2001· article· en· W2048201145 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gail L. Chmura, Laurie L. Helmer, C. Beth Beecher, Elsie M. Sunderland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersLouisiana State University
KeywordsMarshSalt marshBayGeologyAccretion (finance)OceanographySea levelSedimentPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologyWetlandGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine rates of salt marsh accumulation in three marshes of the outer Bay of Fundy. At each marsh we selected a site in the high marsh with similar vegetation, and thus similar elevation. Accretion rates were estimated by 137 Cs, 210 Pb, and pollen stratigraphy to estimate rates of change over periods of 30, 100, and ~170 years, respectively. These rates are compared with records from the two closest tide gauges (Saint John, New Brunswick, and Eastport, Maine) to assess the balance of recent marsh accretion and sea-level change. Averaged marsh accretion rates have ranged from 1.3 ± 0.4 to 4.4 ± 1.6 mm·year –1 over the last two centuries. Recent rates are similar to the rate of sea-level change recorded at Eastport, Maine, suggesting that they are in step with recent sea-level change but very sensitive to short-term variation in relative sea level. Based on the pollen stratigraphy in the marsh sediments, the marsh accretion rate was higher during the late 18th to early 19th century. Higher rates probably were due to local increases in relative sea level as a result of neotectonic activity and may have been enhanced by increased sediment deposition through ice rafting.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207