MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096188321 · doi:10.1002/jqs.651

Application of artificial neural networks (ANN) to high‐latitude dinocyst assemblages for the reconstruction of past sea‐surface conditions in Arctic and sub‐Arctic seas

2001· article· en· W2096188321 on OpenAlexafffund
Odile Peyron, Anne de Vernal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quaternary Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArcticDinocystArtificial neural networkLatitudeThe arcticOceanographyEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyGeologyGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeodesyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The artificial neural network (ANN) method was applied to dinoflagellate cyst (dinocyst) assemblages to estimate palaeoceanographical conditions. The ANN method was adapted to three distinct data bases covering the northern North Atlantic (N = 371), plus the Arctic seas (N = 540) and the Bering Sea (N = 646). The relative abundance of 23 dinocyst taxa was calibrated against hydrographic variables (sea‐surface temperature, salinity and density in February and August, and seasonal extent of sea‐ice cover) using ANNs. The estimation of hydrographical parameters based on an ANN yields high coefficients of correlation between observations and reconstructions for each variable selected. The validation tests performed on the different data bases suggest more accurate calibration at the scale of the North Atlantic and Arctic (N = 540) than on a multibasin scale, i.e. when including the subpolar North Pacific (N = 646). The ANN calibrations and the modern analogue technique (MAT) have been applied to two sequences from the northwest North Atlantic spanning the past 25 000 yr for the purpose of comparison. Both approaches yielded similar results, generally within the range of their respective uncertainties, demonstrating their suitability. The main discrepancies generally correspond to assemblages with poor modern analogues for which we have to admit a higher degree of uncertainties in the reconstruction, whatever the approach used. Copyright © 2001 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quaternary ScienceSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207