MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114595477 · doi:10.1130/g30815.1

Significantly warmer Arctic surface temperatures during the Pliocene indicated by multiple independent proxies

2010· article· en· W2114595477 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ashley P. Ballantyne, David R. Greenwood, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, Adam Csank, Jaelyn J. Eberle, Natalia Rybczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureBrandon University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArcticPeatThe arcticGeologyForcing (mathematics)ClimatologyPaleosolClimate changePaleoclimatologyAtmospheric sciencesRadiative forcingEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyOceanographyPaleontologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temperatures in the Arctic have increased by an astounding 1 °C in response to anthropogenic forcing over the past 20 years and are expected to rise further in the coming decades. The Pliocene (2.6-5.3 Ma) is of particular interest as an analog for future warming because global temperatures were significantly warmer than today for a sustained period of time, with continental configurations similar to present. Here, we estimate mean annual temperature (MAT) based upon three independent proxies from an early Pliocene peat deposit in the Canadian High Arctic. Our proxies, including oxygen isotopes and annual ring widths (MAT =-0.5 ± 1.9 °C), coexistence of paleovegetation (MAT =-0.4 ± 4.1 °C), and bacterial tetraether composition in paleosols (MAT =-0.6 ± 5.0 °C), yield es

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
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

Citations190
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207