A reappraisal of postglacial decay times from Richmond Gulf and James Bay, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decay times inferred from relative sea-level (RSL) histories of previously glaciated regions provide a potentially important constraint on mantle rheology. We present a new compilation of RSL data from Richmond Gulf and James Bay, Canada. This recompilation reveals errors in previous compilations that led to inaccurate estimates for the Richmond Gulf decay time in a series of recently published articles. We derive updated estimates for the decay time at Richmond Gulf and James Bay using a methodology that incorporates errors in both the age and the height of the sea-level markers. This exercise is guided by a series of synthetic RSL calculations that show that decay time estimates in the region can be significantly biased if the RSL time-series are not corrected for global eustatic sea-level trends, or if the estimates are based on composite RSL histories derived by combining data from both the Richmond Gulf and the James Bay regions. Our decay time analysis for Richmond Gulf applies the pioneering approach of Walcott (1980) to a large database and we derive a value of 4.0-6.6 kyr, where the range is defined by a misfit tolerance 10 per cent higher than the minimum. Our analysis for James Bay is based on the uplift curve derived by Hardy (1976), and we estimate a decay time of about 2.0-2.8 kyr. The difference between our estimates for Richmond Gulf and James Bay may be due to errors in the observational record from these regions, but could also be influenced by lateral variations in lithospheric structure associated with the assembly of Laurentia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".